Filename rule question

[Glenn Steen]

On 04/07/07, Marco Induni <minduni at ti-edu.ch> wrote:
> Glenn Steen wrote:
(snip)
> >> No idea :-(
> >>
> > Just a thought, but your quotes of the files in your first message....
> > Do the begin with "--" or "allow/deny"? That is: are there 4 fields in
> > the file, separated by <TAB>, or five (I think the lint would caatch
> > this, so ... probably nothing...:-).
> >
> Hi Gleen,
Go easy on the "e"s;-)
> unfortunately, the file is correct, I added the -- for ident on the mail
> only, but it look like a field.
> Also as you said this error (and even the lost TAB) are catched by the
> --lint option.

Yeah, wouldn't it be nice if it was some easy typo... To much to hope
for, I guess:-).

> > Also, you should pay extra attention to whether it is finame or
> > filetype rules kicking in (in the logs... Perhaps you have MailWatch?
> > Makes things ... easier to see:-).
>
> Uhm, I don't have Mailwatch installed, but in the log i can't see the
> rules involved. I had to activate some flag, or there are special logs ?
> The rules appear to be correct when i tested via the "MailScanner
> --value=filenamerules ...."

No, nothing special, MailWatch just highlight things and make them
obvious (like when you thing you have one envelope sender, and in
reality you don't... you have some other...)... In that vein, did you
do the tests by telnet (so that you have complete control of the SMTP
conversation) or ... some other thing?
Perhaps there is some other rule,like a whitelist for the local host
or domain, kicking in _before_ the rule you try out? If you supply a
--ip=... you can test that too...
Would be great if this was something eaily explicable... I'm running
out of ideas:-).

>
> > I always try to make filenames and filetypes functionally equivalent:).
> > Paying attention to ones logs is never wrong anyway, so ... you
> > wouldn't have any log snippets to look at, for a relevant test run?
> >
> > When you send these messages, or indeed any messages sent to you, if
> > the mail has more recipients than one... then the rules applicable to
> > the first recipient will "win" for all of them... So you might need
> > split messages/recipient (look in the wiki how to do this... At least
> > Postfix and Sendmail can do this for you), to be sure what rules will
> > trigger for a specific message/recipient combination.
>
> Good point, but in my test I'm the only recipient
Hm, another good pint down the drain:-).

> >
> > Cheers
>
> Grazie (Thank you)
>
Thank me when we get to the bottom of this...:-).
I wonder if the file isn't a bit suspect anyway... If you change it to
deny<TAB>/\..*$/<TAB>-<TAB>-<LF>
... does that make a difference? If you make some specific deny rules?
And perhaps some "specific but the other way around" in the default
file?
We're missing something here....:)

Cheers
-- 
-- Glenn
email: glenn < dot > steen < at > gmail < dot > com
work: glenn < dot > steen < at > ap1 < dot > se