Op 12/22/2017 om 3:43 AM schreef Adam Weinberger:
>> On 21 Dec, 2017, at 14:37, Stephan Bosch <step...@rename-it.nl> wrote:
>>
>> Op 12/19/2017 om 8:41 AM schreef Adam Weinberger:
>>> I'm getting a behaviour with pigeonhole that I wasn't expecting. Am I
>>> misunderstanding the design?
>>>
>>> I run my messages through a vnd.dovecot.filter. It's essentially this:
>>>
>>> filter "spam_filter";
>>> if spamheaders {
>>> fileinto "spam";
>>> stop;
>>> }
>>>
>>> Mail stored in the spam folder is the filtered version, but the
>>> implicit-keep message is the original, unfiltered message. If I add an
>>> explicit `keep;` to the end, it stores the filtered version into my
>>> inbox.
>>>
>>> Based on the filter RFC, I was expecting the implicit keep to retain
>>> the filtered version. Am I misinterpreting the spec?
>>
>> I did a quick test, and I am not seeing any problems.
>>
>> However, what is that spamheaders test in your script?
>
> Hi Stephan,
>
> The block looks like this:
>
> ### BOGOFILTER
> filter "bogofilter_filter";
>
> if header :contains "X-Bogosity" [
> "Spam, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=1.00",
> "Spam, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.99"
> ] {
> fileinto "spam/totally";
> stop;
> }
> elsif header :contains "X-Bogosity" "Spam," {
> fileinto "spam/probably";
> stop;
> }
> elsif header :contains "X-Bogosity" "Unsure," {
> fileinto "spam/maybe";
> stop;
> }
>
> Bogofilter adds an X-Bogosity header. With the block as it is, when it
> hits the implicit keep the message has no X-Bogosity header. When I
> add 'keep;' to the end, it does have the header.
>
> If it's just me, that's fine, as it's incredibly easy to work around.
What version is this? Please provide full config from `dovecot -n`.
Regards,
Stephan.
