Re: [Evolution] Probable problem with filters *sigh*

[guenther <guenther rudersport de>]

> > As this seems to be meant for the list (but you sent it to me
> > personally), I Cc: the list again. If you didn't want that, feel free to
> > slap me around with a large trout...
>
> No, for once I actually erred and didn't realize it wasn't going to the
> list.  Good thing you caught it.

Deja-vu -- try 'Reply To All' or 'Reply To List'...
That thread starts looking like I am talking to myself. ;-)


> > > > > One would be thinking wrong apparently.  "Sender" in the context of the
> > > > > filter apparently only looks at To: and CC: information and is ignoring
> > > > > the Sender: header.  If I change the rule so that s/Sender/Specific
> > > > > Header/ and set that header to Sender, it works just fine.  What gives?
> > > >
> > > > Just tried that myself and got the expected results using 'Sender' for
> > > > your mail (using Evo 1.2.4).
> > >
> > > And the string you were matching was _only_ present in the Sender:
> > > field?  This is the thing I suspect which might be the reason this has
> > > been overlooked.
> >
> > Nope. I did right-click "Create Rule from Message / Filter on Sender",
> > which led to the following filter:
> >  Criterion:  "Sender", "contains", "dagmar speakeasy net"
> >
> > Cross checking with the header of that mail:
> >  From: Dagmar d'Surreal <dagmar speakeasy net>
> >  Sender:  evolution-admin lists ximian com
> >
> > So 'Sender' actually is the sender of the message (from a user point of
> > view). For the technical Sender: header you have to use 'Specific
> > header' criterion.
>
> I can understand why the Sender filter choice would be inclusive of the
> From: field, but I find it quite confusing that it doesn't appear to be
> inclusive
>
> > At least on 1.2.4 it used the sender address (From:) instead of the
> > buggy To: and Cc: as you observed with 1.3.2.
>
> Okay, _that_ was just a combination of brainfry from dealing with
> Super-DMCA legislation and being made slightly loopy with
> antihistamines.  I *meant* to say it seems to only be checking the From:
> field and got a bit confuzzled towards the end of the sentence.  
>
> To restate and remove all doubt (I'll double-check it this time before I
> click Send because I'm still on anti-histamines) the problem is that the
> selection item in the filter is named "Sender" but only seems to
> consider this an alias for the mail header "From:" and isn't even
> inclusive with the mail header named also "Sender:".

OK, now I get that straight. I agree with you, that it is confusing and
should be fixed somehow. Filing a bug would be a good idea -- even make
that 'From' instead of 'Sender' or include Sender: header.

Hope you get well soon.


> > Still, can anyone confirm that?

No need anymore, as the behavior is the same.


> > > > I suspect a bug in your beta version. According to the header of your
> > > > mail you are using Evolution 1.3.2 (Preview Release).
> > >
> > > Well, to be honest, the people who put together how the filters work don't
> > > think the same way I do so I was basically waiting to hear if there was a
> > > /reason/ this was an expected behaviour before filing it in Bugzilla.
> >
> > Sorry, I don't get that. As you are messing around with specific
> > headers, you sure have a technically point of view -- as like as the
> > Ximian hackers...
>
> Well, I'm still trying to wrap my brain around why the outgoing filters
> operate on mail *after* it's left the system, when its complimentary
> function (the input filters) operates on mail _before_ you see it.  I
> kinda expected the operations to invert so that mail went...
>
> Input Filters:   From World -> filters -> To You
> Output Filters:  From You -> filters -> To World
>
> ...but instead output filters operate like
>
>   From You ---> To World
>             `-> Filters 
>
> ...which had me spending an hour or so poking and prodding at the thing
> trying to figure out why the filter rules I'd put together for *not*
> sending some mails (when I'd forget to pick an altered email address for
> posting to a mailing list that's a bit stubborn about protecting their
> mail archives against spammers) weren't doing me a bit of good.

Yep, that definitely would be a great enhancement and should be filed in
bugzilla as a wish.

I can remember a discussion about that months ago for that very reason.
Don't remember any further, though.



> > > I've
> > > got one for the calendar I'll probably file this weekend if I can't figure
> > > out what it takes to make the week view start with Monday instead of Saturday
> > > (which to most people I think would be somewhat useless) because I'm somewhat
> > > more certain it shouldn't be like it is now.
> >
> > If it important for the forthcoming 1.4 release, please file it soon.
> > Even more, when it breaks behavior in 1.2.x versions and is purely wrong
> > -- like this one...
> >
> > My question for bugzilla was just meant as a hint... ;-)
>
> Well, I figured you were hinting at that, but I'm trying really hard to
> avoid NOT_A_BUG bugs just because the program doesn't work the way I
> *think* it should.

Sure, I understand that. Indeed, I go that way sometimes myself...

If you filed those bugs, please let me know the bug numbers.

...guenther


-- 
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0  ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}