Dual TO: names in Mailwatch

[Steve Freegard]

Hi Julian,

Looks good - thankfully I don't run Postfix ;-)) - but I'll try it on
Sendmail to make sure that it works okay with that (CT or Pete - can you try
this on Postfix please??).

I was looking at Postfix.pm to try and save your time and come up with a fix
and found the following:

338c338,339
<         push @{$message->{to}}, $recdata;
---
>         # Don't add the recipient data but keep the metadata for later
>         # push @{$message->{to}}, $recdata;

As MailScanner seems to store the recipient data for $rectype='R' and again
for $rectype='O' which looks like where the duplication was occuring, so I'd
commented out the latter but left the storage of the metadata so this could
be reconstucted if needed.  Don't know if this is any good though...

Cheers,
Steve.

-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Field
To: MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Sent: 11/10/03 3:35 PM
Subject: Re: Dual TO: names in Mailwatch

Steve,

Can this be done easily in MailWatch by doing something like this very
early on with the message?

my(%rcpts);
map { $rcpts{$_}=1; } @{$message->{to}};
$message->{to} = keys %rcpts;

That would remove any duplicate "to" addresses from the message object.
Try putting the above 3 lines of code right near the start of the
MailWatch
code.

At 15:25 10/11/2003, you wrote:
>I tried to respond off list to Julian, but my mail was returned.
>
>I've been begging for this for months and would entertain the idea of
paying
>someone (anyone) to escalate the priority of this problem...
>
>Thanks!
>
>CT
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Julian Field" <mailscanner at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK>
>To: <MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
>Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 9:03 AM
>Subject: Re: Dual TO: names in Mailwatch
>
>
> > It's a known MailScanner bug. I just haven't got around to fixing it
yet,
> > it's not exactly high priority at the moment.
> >
> > At 13:59 10/11/2003, you wrote:
> > >Hi Pete,
> > >
> > >This is a MailScanner or Postfix issue as MailWatch only uses
information
> > >from MailScanner's $message object which is populated by
MailScanner
> > >parseing the Postfix message file.
> > >
> > >You'll also find the same problem of duplicated 'To' entries in the
admin
> > >notices as reported by someone else.
> > >
> > >The postcat command didn't really give me much to go on at all
(thought
>it'd
> > >be better than that) - so I'll have a Google around and see if I
can find
> > >any info about the file spec for Postfix and see if I can find the
>problem.
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >Steve.
> > >
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Pete russell <pete at EATATHOME.COM.AU>
> > >To: MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK <MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
> > >Sent: Mon Nov 10 13:47:28 2003
> > >Subject: Re: Dual TO: names in Mailwatch
> > >
> > >Funny, this happened ona %100 fresh install of mailscanner and
fedora
> > >and MW .4 - my previous post was regarding my existing MW .3
machines.
> > >
> > >If you do find a fault I can repair myself, please le tme know as I
> > >would like to fix the .3 install on the production servers - cos I
wont
> > >be moving to .4 just yet.
> > >
> > >thanks
> > >Pete
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: MailScanner mailing list [mailto:MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK]
On
> > >Behalf Of Steve Freegard
> > >Sent: Tuesday, 11 November 2003 12:37 AM
> > >To: MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> > >Subject: Re: Dual TO: names in Mailwatch
> > >
> > >Hi Pete,
> > >
> > >Can you stop the outbound queue runner temporarily to stop the
messages
> > >that
> > >have been processed by MailScanner from being delievered, then run
the
> > >'postcat' command across one of the messages and post the output to
the
> > >list.
> > >
> > >Kind regards,
> > >Steve.
> > >
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Pete russell <pete at EATATHOME.COM.AU>
> > >To: MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK <MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
> > >Sent: Mon Nov 10 08:38:36 2003
> > >Subject: Dual TO: names in Mailwatch
> > >
> > >I have the latest version of mailwatch, mailscanner, postfix, mysql
and
> > >RH9 - in the TO: column, when looking at recent messages, all the
names
> > >are listed twice - this also makes the Top Recipients by Volume
graph
> > >unreadable as the legend has 2 entries for each person. Doesn't
seem
> > >like we are getting 2 deliveries though, and doesn't seem like
anything
> > >is written twice to the maillog.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Any ideas?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Pete
> > >
> > >--
> > >This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> > >intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
they
> > >are addressed. If you have received this email in error please
notify
> > >the sender and delete the message from your mailbox.
> > >
> > >This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept
by
> > >MailScanner (www.mailscanner.info) for the presence of computer
viruses.
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> > >intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
they
> > >are addressed. If you have received this email in error please
notify
> > >the sender and delete the message from your mailbox.
> > >
> > >This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept
by
> > >MailScanner (www.mailscanner.info) for the presence of computer
viruses.
> >
> > --
> > Julian Field
> > www.MailScanner.info
> > MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support
> >
> > PGP footprint: EE81 D763 3DB0 0BFD E1DC  7222 11F6 5947 1415 B654

--
Julian Field
www.MailScanner.info
MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support

PGP footprint: EE81 D763 3DB0 0BFD E1DC  7222 11F6 5947 1415 B654

--
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the sender and delete the message from your mailbox.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MailScanner (www.mailscanner.info) for the presence of computer viruses.