[antispam-f] Re: Delete after download / Ignore messages already retrieved
- From: Frank de Bruijn <antispam@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <antispam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 19:38:30 +0200
In article <5214aff6e2robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Robin Hampshire <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'm sorry these results were so confusing. I really haven't a clue
> what's been going on.
Some of it does make sense to me, depending on your AntiSpam's settings
(probably). Not all of it, though.
First of all, I hope that when you wrote:
> I put a '*report chs$' command immediately after the line
>
> IF new%PROCopenChoices
>
> towards the start of the AS !RunImage file,
you didn't really mean you actually modified and re-saved the !RunImage
file itself, as that can lead to all kinds of unpredictable results. The
only way to make changes to the !RunImage is to change and save the
Source file and then run !AntiSpam.Resources.!Crunch to create a new
!RunImage.
> The first time I downloaded these emails, all four appeared in the
> marking window, "test 1" showing Defer (no square brackets) in the
> Action box and with one of my UserTest rules in the Rule window. The
> User Test in question does not test the subject line, but should have
> "Accepted" the message because of the From: address.
>
> The other three tests showed [Accept] in the Action box and the Rule
> window was empty in each case. Again, if the same User Test had been
> reached each of them should have been accepted as they all came from
> the same From: address.
I think this means that those three were actually treated more or less
as expected. They were accepted (either on a rule or by default) and the
fact that they appear with brackets indicates you have 'Ignore already
retrieved' set without a number of days (see the StrongHelp manual, the
first paragraph of the Marking window page and pages linked from there).
No idea why the first one was deferred if it should have been accepted,
though. The Rule field being empty for the other three is a bit puzzling
too. It should only be empty if the message was 'defaulted'.
Does the log for that mailbox show what happened? It should at least
report how that first message came to be deferred and why the others
(appear to) have been defaulted.
> At this point, within the marking window clicking Accept on message 1
> changed the Action window to Accept (no square brackets). Clicking
> Accept on any of the other messages had no effect, even after Process
> was clicked.
That too would be as expected. The deferred one can still be deleted or
accepted, but the other three have already been accepted - and
downloaded - and the 'Ignore...' setting just makes them show up in the
Marking window.
> On the next download message "test 1" was successfully downloaded and
> the other 3 appeared in the marking window again with the Rule box
> empty and each of them marked [Accept]. At this point I could force a
> message to be Accept'ed by clicking first on Delete, at which point
> the Action box changed to Delete (no square brackets) and then on
> Accept, at which point the Action box changed to Accept (no square
> bracket). On the next download, that message was successfully
> downloaded.
Again. It had already been picked up once on the previous run.
> At this point once again "test 1" was placed in the marking window as
> before with the appropriate User Rule in the Rule box, but no output
> to Reporter. The Rule box also reported that the user rule in question
> was #170, presumably meaning the 170th rule tested.
No text following the number?
> At this stage I was a bit baffled as to why the user rule had been
> used for the message, but that there was no output to Reporter.
I assume you did restart AntiSpam after making the changes to the
UserTests file, but did you also click the 'Forget deferred/headered
messages' button in the Marking window? If you have 'Remember' set for
deferred messages (Scan frame of the Choices window), AntiSpam won't
even look at the headers of such a message after it has deferred it
once.
> I even renamed the UserTests file and moved it out of the AS_Choices
> directory but still the same result came back in the marking window
> (Summaries file deleted and AS quit/restarted between each change).
If this is without making AntiSpam forget any deferred messages first,
this is entirely predictable, as the message is effectively ignored as
soon as the UID has been recognised. That also explains why the rule
number doesn't change: the program displays the value which was stored
when the message was first deferred.
> I also noticed that the beta version creates a Cache directory in the
> Choices directory, so I tried deleting that but still same result.
That Cache directory was introduced in version 1.59 (December 2006). It
does not directly affect rule checking (just improves loading speed of
Lists).
Regards,
Frank
Other related posts:
