Turnpike 6.07 Routing problem since mail migration - help please

[Thingfish]

Earlier today I posted the following on the Demon Forum:

*********
I have been using turnpike since I first signed up with demon in about
1995.

I use webmail to remove spam and other unwanted emails and then I
download all remaining email at the same time from the servers on to a
single machine running tunpike.

Turnpike then sorts the mail into 20 different folders based on simple
"username@" rules.

The configuration that got me to this point was given to me over the
phone by demon support many years ago. The folder tree looks like
Turnpike Neighborhood/Postmaster/Username Folders.

On the same level as Turnpike Neighborhood is a folder labeled Inbox.

Since the migration, (and since I followed the demon tunpike setup guide)
all mail is delivered to this single inbox and not distributed to the
correct inboxes as it was before.

I have called Demon helpdesk a couple of times and the (barely
undestandable) technicians there just take some details and then
disconnect the call.

Does anyone have any idea how I might sort this clusterfunk?

Thanks.
M
*********

Someone on the forum said:

"You will need to set up some new Turnpike routing rules, since if you
have the default set-up on the new mail server all your mail will reach
your computer addressed to ***@. All is not lost, as the
original addressee's name can still be found within the headers and used
to route to the correct folder."


And then went on to suggest I post here as you guys know a deal more than
the Demon helpdesk. Can anyone help me out please?

Thanks
M

[Gerard Alan Latham]

Post by Thingfish
Does anyone have any idea how I might sort this clusterfunk?

Put new rule in the thingfish folder:

/^Received:.* <***@anemailaddress/h

Will put all mail for thingfish into the thingfish folder

[Roy Brown]

In message <***@81.171.92.222>,
Thingfish <***@anemailaddress.com> writing at 12:21:36 in his/her
local time opines:-

Post by Thingfish
*********
I have been using turnpike since I first signed up with demon in about
1995.
I use webmail to remove spam and other unwanted emails and then I
download all remaining email at the same time from the servers on to a
single machine running tunpike.
Turnpike then sorts the mail into 20 different folders based on simple
The configuration that got me to this point was given to me over the
phone by demon support many years ago. The folder tree looks like
Turnpike Neighborhood/Postmaster/Username Folders.
On the same level as Turnpike Neighborhood is a folder labeled Inbox.
Since the migration, (and since I followed the demon tunpike setup guide)
all mail is delivered to this single inbox and not distributed to the
correct inboxes as it was before.
I have called Demon helpdesk a couple of times and the (barely
undestandable) technicians there just take some details and then
disconnect the call.
Does anyone have any idea how I might sort this clusterfunk?
Thanks.
M
*********
"You will need to set up some new Turnpike routing rules, since if you
have the default set-up on the new mail server all your mail will reach
original addressee's name can still be found within the headers and used
to route to the correct folder."
And then went on to suggest I post here as you guys know a deal more than
the Demon helpdesk. Can anyone help me out please?
Thanks
M

One method is to go onto the Demon site, as described in that Demon
Guide, and set up the 20 username@ rules to have a mailbox each (if they
let you have that many). This will put things back largely as they were
before, as regards addressing, and your existing TP rules should then
start working again.

An alternative approach is to go into each rule and modify it to be a
custom rule of the form:-
/Received: .*for username@/h
where you replace username, in each case, with the particular username
you wish to route.


I use the first option, as I receive mail to non-Demon addresses, which
are not affected by this omnishambles, and I have no wish to change my
TP settings to have two sorts of rules.

[Paul Wolff]

Post by Roy Brown
local time opines:-

Post by Thingfish
*********
I have been using turnpike since I first signed up with demon in about
1995.

[...]

Post by Roy Brown

Post by Thingfish
Since the migration, (and since I followed the demon tunpike setup guide)
all mail is delivered to this single inbox and not distributed to the
correct inboxes as it was before.

[...]

Post by Roy Brown

Post by Thingfish
Does anyone have any idea how I might sort this clusterfunk?
Thanks.
M
*********

[...]

Post by Roy Brown
One method is to go onto the Demon site, as described in that Demon
they let you have that many). This will put things back largely as they
were before, as regards addressing, and your existing TP rules should
then start working again.

I presume this solution also requires 20 new ticked entries in
Turnpike's Configure Email Transfer dialog, Receiving Email, Enable POP3
accounts, with each such entry needing Server name, Mailbox, and
Password, where Mailbox is the full email address
(***@hostname.demon.co.uk).

Or does collecting from the ***@h.d.c.u account collect for
all mailboxes?

I seem to have read somewhere that after migration you can no longer
collect all mail in the way you used to be able to (where the mailbox
was simply hostname).

[Tony]

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Roy Brown
One method is to go onto the Demon site, as described in that Demon
they let you have that many). This will put things back largely as
they were before, as regards addressing, and your existing TP rules
should then start working again.

I presume this solution also requires 20 new ticked entries in
Turnpike's Configure Email Transfer dialog, Receiving Email, Enable
POP3 accounts, with each such entry needing Server name, Mailbox, and
Password, where Mailbox is the full email address

Instead of 20 mailboxes (yes, each requiring separate collection), you
can achieve the same effect with 20 aliases in one mailbox (which can
even be the catch-all mailbox).

Post by Paul Wolff
all mailboxes?

No.

[Roy Brown]

In message <***@hotair.localhost.invalid>, Tony
<***@hotair.demon.co.uk> writing at 18:17:24 in his/her local
time opines:-

Post by Tony

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Roy Brown
One method is to go onto the Demon site, as described in that Demon
they let you have that many). This will put things back largely as
they were before, as regards addressing, and your existing TP rules
should then start working again.

I presume this solution also requires 20 new ticked entries in
Turnpike's Configure Email Transfer dialog, Receiving Email, Enable
POP3 accounts, with each such entry needing Server name, Mailbox, and
Password, where Mailbox is the full email address

Yes, quite right; it's in the instructions, but I should have mentioned
that. Apologies.

Post by Tony
Instead of 20 mailboxes (yes, each requiring separate collection), you
can achieve the same effect with 20 aliases in one mailbox (which can
even be the catch-all mailbox).

I've heard conflicting reports on this. Are you saying that the mail for
each alias then comes in from the one mailbox collection, but marked
'for' that alias?

And certainly, I've heard that if a certain mail is sent to more than
one of those 20 grouped aliases, then only one copy will be kept (with
no-one being quite sure what the rules are as to which one - first
arrived, last arrived or what?)

But this may not be a problem for the OP.

[Tony]

Post by Roy Brown
opines:-

Post by Tony
Instead of 20 mailboxes (yes, each requiring separate collection), you
can achieve the same effect with 20 aliases in one mailbox (which can
even be the catch-all mailbox).

I've heard conflicting reports on this. Are you saying that the mail
for each alias then comes in from the one mailbox collection, but
marked 'for' that alias?

Yes to both parts of that question. Here are the relevant headers for an
example. It's from a Gmail account to a test username of dontpanic
which is an alias in my catch-all Demon account, still with primary
username administrator. It arrived from that account as shown by the
POP3 Received header (and the TP Connect log), but the lower Received
header that TP uses is for dontpanic rather than administrator. It
routed correctly to a folder where the rule is "Accept mail addressed to
dontpanic", i.e. not a /h rule.

Received: from mail.demon.co.uk by hotair.demon.co.uk with POP3
id <7220."***@hotair.demon.co.uk"@mail.demon.co.uk>
for <"***@hotair.demon.co.uk"@mail.demon.co.uk>;
Wed, 14 Nov 2012 08:10:37 +0000
Received: from smtp.demon.co.uk (91.221.168.52) by HVUT01.thus.corp
(192.168.70.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Wed, 14 Nov
2012 08:07:53 +0000
Received: from mdfmta011.tbr.inty.net (unknown [91.221.168.52]) by
mdfmta011.tbr.inty.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AE48A90452 for
<***@hotair.demon.co.uk>; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 08:10:28 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mdfmta011.tbr.inty.net (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by
mdfmta011.tbr.inty.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09045A90447 for
<***@hotair.demon.co.uk>; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 08:10:28 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mail-ie0-f170.google.com (unknown [209.85.223.170]) (using
TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested)
by mdfmta011.tbr.inty.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for

Post by Roy Brown
And certainly, I've heard that if a certain mail is sent to more than
one of those 20 grouped aliases, then only one copy will be kept (with
no-one being quite sure what the rules are as to which one - first
arrived, last arrived or what?)

I haven't tested that as it's not a problem for me.

[Thingfish]

Post by Tony
Instead of 20 mailboxes (yes, each requiring separate collection), you
can achieve the same effect with 20 aliases in one mailbox (which can
even be the catch-all mailbox).

Sorry to be so clueless. How do I set up an alias?

M

[Tony]

Post by Thingfish

Post by Tony
Instead of 20 mailboxes (yes, each requiring separate collection), you
can achieve the same effect with 20 aliases in one mailbox (which can
even be the catch-all mailbox).

Sorry to be so clueless. How do I set up an alias?

In the Demon Email Management Portal / Users / edit (the user of your
choice) / Email addresses: Add another, fill in the username you want as
an alias for that account; leave its Primary button unchecked.

[Thingfish]

Post by Roy Brown
One method is to go onto the Demon site, as described in that Demon
they let you have that many). This will put things back largely as
they were before, as regards addressing, and your existing TP rules
should then start working again.
An alternative approach is to go into each rule and modify it to be a
custom rule of the form:-
where you replace username, in each case, with the particular username
you wish to route.
I use the first option, as I receive mail to non-Demon addresses,
which are not affected by this omnishambles, and I have no wish to
change my TP settings to have two sorts of rules.

I tried the second method and it worked to a point.

Mail sent directly to username@ now makes its way into the correct box.
Mail cc'ed to, or bcc'ed to or mail coming through a mailing list, or
indeed anything other than single mail to username@ doesn't.

I'm guessing here but it seems that Demon are changing the "for" field
to administrator@ and your workaround looks at the whole headers to pick
out username@ for the sort. Am I right here?

If so any thoughts on a workaround for the workaround?

BTW on the first method, if I set up 20 username@ rules will I still be
able to collect all mail in one go with an administrator login from TP?

This is not the first time that Demon have provided an "upgrade" that
required days of work just to get back to a close approximation of the
pre-upgrade service levels. When I buy a microwave I want it to cook
food not to require me to train up as an electronic engineer in order to
re-build it to cook food. What are these people smoking?

Cheers
M

[Roy Brown]

In message <***@81.171.92.222>,
Thingfish <***@anemailaddress.com> writing at 08:27:13 in his/her
local time opines:-

Post by Thingfish

Post by Roy Brown
One method is to go onto the Demon site, as described in that Demon
they let you have that many). This will put things back largely as
they were before, as regards addressing, and your existing TP rules
should then start working again.
An alternative approach is to go into each rule and modify it to be a
custom rule of the form:-
where you replace username, in each case, with the particular username
you wish to route.
I use the first option, as I receive mail to non-Demon addresses,
which are not affected by this omnishambles, and I have no wish to
change my TP settings to have two sorts of rules.

I tried the second method and it worked to a point.
Mail cc'ed to, or bcc'ed to or mail coming through a mailing list, or
I'm guessing here but it seems that Demon are changing the "for" field

Yes, that's exactly it.

Post by Thingfish
If so any thoughts on a workaround for the workaround?

I've just sent myself about 20 emails, testing various combinations of
this.
It's going wrong on so many levels, it's really hard to credit.

As you observe, if Demon get more than one copy of an email, it seems
not to add (or rewrite, whatever it's doing) the lowdown 'for's, even
for the To: addressed copy.

And if more than one copy goes into a single mailbox, then the second
and subsequent copies are silently dropped.

However, when I send myself multiply addressed emails with one Demon
address, and the other(s) non-Demon,, then I do get the expected
low-down 'for', even on Cc and BCC addresses.

So if you've been testing this by sending yourself emails at Demon, then
yes indeed, the 'for's won't be there. But in real-life, unless you get
an email addressed to more than one of your Demon addresses, it should
all still work.

Still not satisfactory, though, as you have no control over who might do
this.

A better rule might be:-

/^(To:|CC:|Received: .*for).*username/h

which will collect mail To: or CC: username, and leave the 'for' just to
mop up any BCC, as long as the 'for' is present.

Post by Thingfish
able to collect all mail in one go with an administrator login from TP?

The smart money seems to be on adding the 20 usernames as aliases for
'administrator' at Demon. Then you only need collect the one
administrator mailbox, but the mail for the aliases will be presented to
you such that your original TP rules will work again.

Seems a lot easier than the above.

But note that you will lose any duplicates across the 20 if you take
this short-cut, though this may not matter to you.

Post by Thingfish
This is not the first time that Demon have provided an "upgrade" that
required days of work just to get back to a close approximation of the
pre-upgrade service levels. When I buy a microwave I want it to cook
food not to require me to train up as an electronic engineer in order to
re-build it to cook food. What are these people smoking?

Well, they used to be a crack team. Now they seem more like a team where
the crack's showing....

Post by Thingfish
Cheers
M

[Roy Brown]

In message <719NhoInj6oQFw$***@x.x>, Roy Brown
<***@acanthus.demon.co.uk> writing at 14:21:27 in
his/her local time opines:-

<snip>

Post by Roy Brown
I've just sent myself about 20 emails, testing various combinations of
this.
It's going wrong on so many levels, it's really hard to credit.

<snip>

Now posted to the Demon forum:

<URL:
http://forum.demon.net/topic/anomalous-handling-of-mail-to-multiple-addre
sses-on-a-subdomain#post-4115>

[Mike H]

Roy Brown writes ...

Post by Roy Brown
An alternative approach is to go into each rule and modify it to be a
custom rule of the form:-
where you replace username, in each case, with the particular username
you wish to route.

This works perfectly for me.

What I do miss is the loss of envelope rejection of unrecognised aliases
(e-mail names). These are now the only things that go into the default
Inbox. They are almost certainly all SPAM but, at least, they are all in
one place.

And on the subject of SPAM, there was recent discussion concerning the
use of K9 (or similar) as a proxy server (if that is the right term)
that alters the header of suspect SPAM so that it may be routed into a
pseudo mailing list with a short (say 5 day) expiry date. This gives
time to check and retrieve "false positives". The rest are auto deleted
when time expired.

K9 is still going strong. Before the loss of envelope rejection, it was
running at better than 97% success. In other words, it got it wrong less
than 3% of the time (false positives 0.18%, false negatives 2.53%).

[Roy Brown]

In message <RiR8$***@ada-augusta.demon.co.uk>, Mike H
<***@ada-augusta.demon.co.uk> writing at 12:32:05 in his/her
local time opines:-

Post by Mike H
Roy Brown writes ...

Post by Roy Brown
An alternative approach is to go into each rule and modify it to be a
custom rule of the form:-
where you replace username, in each case, with the particular username
you wish to route.

This works perfectly for me.

As we all thought it did; but Thingfish has found a loophole in it, and
it's real (see my earlier posting, and the link to my posting on the
Demon forum).

Post by Mike H
What I do miss is the loss of envelope rejection of unrecognised
aliases (e-mail names). These are now the only things that go into the
default Inbox. They are almost certainly all SPAM but, at least, they
are all in one place.

All unrecognised aliases are now being rewritten to administrator.

So the trick is to set up one or more mailboxes at Demon to cover all
your recognised aliases, and add collection from it/them..

Having done this, and being sure it is working, if you then Envelope
Reject all mail to administrator, this should do the same thing as your
previous rule.

I think.

[Tony]

Post by Roy Brown
Having done this, and being sure it is working, if you then Envelope
Reject all mail to administrator, this should do the same thing as your
previous rule.
I think.

Or just never collect from the administrator account.

I think.

[John Hall]

Post by Mike H
What I do miss is the loss of envelope rejection of unrecognised
aliases (e-mail names). These are now the only things that go into
the default Inbox. They are almost certainly all SPAM but, at least,
they are all in one place.

They might not all be spam. I've been surprised at how many genuinely
misaddressed emails I've been receiving. As well as occasional genuine
typos (eg "jhall" typed as the domain when "johall" was intended),
there's a company in the north-west of England where many of the
employees seems to think that their addresses are ***@jhall.co.uk.
A bit of detective work suggests that their correct domain is
jameshall.co.uk. A couple of these people seem to have signed up to a
lot of mailing lists using their incorrect addresses, so I've been kept
busy unsubscribing them.

[Neale D. Hind]

Post by Mike H
Roy Brown writes ...

Post by Roy Brown
An alternative approach is to go into each rule and modify it to be a
custom rule of the form:-
where you replace username, in each case, with the particular username
you wish to route.

This works perfectly for me.

I've seen this custom rule suggestion in several posts in this newsgroup
but I've never been able to make it work. I tried it with /for /To and
/Received but they all still end up in the default folder.

That it clearly does work for some is driving me nuts. Do you think you
could email me a screen shot of your Rule.

Here is what mine looks like:

[Andy]

Post by Mike H
Roy Brown writes ...

Post by Roy Brown
An alternative approach is to go into each rule and modify it to be a
custom rule of the form:-

^
space


Do you have this space?

[Ian]

Post by Neale D. Hind

Post by Mike H
Roy Brown writes ...

Post by Roy Brown
An alternative approach is to go into each rule and modify it to be a
custom rule of the form:-
where you replace username, in each case, with the particular
username you wish to route.

This works perfectly for me.

I've seen this custom rule suggestion in several posts in this
newsgroup but I've never been able to make it work. I tried it with
/for /To and /Received but they all still end up in the default folder.
That it clearly does work for some is driving me nuts. Do you think you
could email me a screen shot of your Rule.
[ A MIME image / png part was included here. ]
None of them work.
Cheers,

It goes into the Inbox properties, not Inbox/shopping,
and should be

/^Received:.* <***@easton/h

assuming that's your folder and domain.

[Neale D. Hind]

Post by Ian

Post by Neale D. Hind

Post by Mike H
Roy Brown writes ...

Post by Roy Brown
An alternative approach is to go into each rule and modify it to be
a custom rule of the form:-
where you replace username, in each case, with the particular
username you wish to route.

This works perfectly for me.

I've seen this custom rule suggestion in several posts in this
newsgroup but I've never been able to make it work. I tried it with
/for /To and /Received but they all still end up in the default folder.
That it clearly does work for some is driving me nuts. Do you think
you could email me a screen shot of your Rule.
[ A MIME image / png part was included here. ]
None of them work.
Cheers,

It goes into the Inbox properties, not Inbox/shopping,
and should be
assuming that's your folder and domain.

For the example given my inbox name is "Inbox;Shopping" without the
quotes. I'm right-clicking it and selecting Properties then adding the
custom rule to the Rules tab.

Here is one of the headers from a mail that is not following the rule
and ends up in "Inbox;Pending".

Post by Ian

Post by Neale D. Hind

Post by Mike H

Post by Roy Brown
Start of Header

Received: from mail.demon.co.uk by btinternet.com with POP3
id <2184."***@easton.demon.co.uk"@mail.demon.co.uk>
for <"***@easton.demon.co.uk"@mail.demon.co.uk>;
Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:45:22 +0000
Received: from smtp.demon.co.uk (91.221.168.43) by HVUT04.thus.corp
(192.168.70.44) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Mon, 25
Feb
2013 15:45:49 +0000
Received: from mdfmta002.tbr.inty.net (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by
mdfmta002.tbr.inty.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34A2E5F4070 for
<***@easton.demon.co.uk>; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:45:49 +0000
(GMT)
Received: from mdfmta002.tbr.inty.net (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by
mdfmta002.tbr.inty.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1929E5F406C for
<***@easton.demon.co.uk>; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:45:49 +0000
(GMT)
Received: from mdfmta002.tbr.inty.net (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by
mdfmta002.tbr.inty.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE22D5F406A for
<***@easton.demon.co.uk>; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:45:48 +0000 (GMT)
Received-SPF: pass (mdfmta002.tbr.inty.net: domain of hotmail.com
designates 157.55.2.27 as permitted sender) client-ip=157.55.2.27;
envelope-from=***@hotmail.com;
helo=dub0-omc3-s18.dub0.hotmail.com;
Received: from dub0-omc3-s18.dub0.hotmail.com (unknown [157.55.2.27]) by
mdfmta002.tbr.inty.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for
<***@easton.demon.co.uk>; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:45:48 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DUB109-W105 ([157.55.2.7]) by
dub0-omc3-s18.dub0.hotmail.com
with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 25 Feb 2013 07:45:48 -0800
X-EIP: [GSHm+zBGS7ukBieqAJWAJ6LdNPK8eO26]
X-Originating-Email: [***@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <DUB109-***@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_6848eb7c-ec56-48ba-8e9f-0c502cbf6300_"
From: Neale Hind <***@hotmail.com>
To: "***@easton.demon.co.uk" <***@easton.demon.co.uk>
Subject: test2
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:45:48 +0000
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Feb 2013 15:45:48.0760 (UTC)
FILETIME=[2EC9D580:01CE136F]
X-MDF-HostID: 11
X-MDF-HostID: 11
Return-Path: ***@hotmail.com
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthSource: HVUT04.thus.corp
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthAs: Anonymous
MIME-Version: 1.0

Post by Ian

Post by Neale D. Hind

Post by Mike H
End of Header

To me it looks as though the header does match the rule so I can't see
why it doesn't get routed properly.

Cheers,

[Gerard Alan Latham]

Post by Neale D. Hind
To me it looks as though the header does match the rule so I can't see
why it doesn't get routed properly.

check your folder routing order

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Gerard Alan Latham

Post by Neale D. Hind
To me it looks as though the header does match the rule so I can't see
why it doesn't get routed properly.

check your folder routing order

Do you mean the order in which the rules are for a particular folder, or
actually the order of the folders? If you mean the folders, I don't know
how to check _their_ routing order.

[Nun the Wizer]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Gerard Alan Latham

Post by Neale D. Hind
To me it looks as though the header does match the rule so I can't
see why it doesn't get routed properly.

check your folder routing order

Do you mean the order in which the rules are for a particular folder,
or actually the order of the folders? If you mean the folders, I don't
know how to check _their_ routing order.

In TP Explorer, Configure/Folder Routeing.

[bert]

Post by Nun the Wizer

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Gerard Alan Latham

Post by Neale D. Hind
To me it looks as though the header does match the rule so I can't
see why it doesn't get routed properly.

check your folder routing order

Do you mean the order in which the rules are for a particular folder,
or actually the order of the folders? If you mean the folders, I don't
know how to check _their_ routing order.

In TP Explorer, Configure/Folder Routeing.

Rules are applied from the top down so first to match wins.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

[]

Post by bert

Post by Nun the Wizer

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Do you mean the order in which the rules are for a particular folder,
or actually the order of the folders? If you mean the folders, I don't
know how to check _their_ routing order.

In TP Explorer, Configure/Folder Routeing.

Rules are applied from the top down so first to match wins.

Thanks; I'd never seen that before.

[Neale D. Hind]

Post by Gerard Alan Latham

Post by Neale D. Hind
To me it looks as though the header does match the rule so I can't see
why it doesn't get routed properly.

check your folder routing order

That didn't help. I put my 'shopping' folder at the top but it still
went to 'pending'.

Very frustrating.

Cheers,

[Gerard Alan Latham]

Post by Neale D. Hind
hat didn't help. I put my 'shopping' folder at the top but it still
went to 'pending'.

Then also put the rule in pending but make it a reject rule. This can
all be done within the folder routing drop down. Also, if you need to
copy the rule then click on the Modify button & CTL c it, then cancel &
you have the rule in the clipboard.

If you still have problems then email me.

[Neale D. Hind]

Post by Neale D. Hind

Post by Gerard Alan Latham

Post by Neale D. Hind
To me it looks as though the header does match the rule so I can't
see why it doesn't get routed properly.

check your folder routing order

That didn't help. I put my 'shopping' folder at the top but it still
went to 'pending'.

An update - I turned OFF 'Accept dead letter mail' for Inbox;Pending and
the custom rule routeing then worked. So it seems as though 'Accept dead
letter mail' is overriding custom rule routeing. That's not how I
thought it was supposed to work though. And I'm not comfortable with
deactivating dead letter mail.

Cheers,

[Neale D. Hind]

Post by Neale D. Hind

Post by Neale D. Hind

Post by Gerard Alan Latham

Post by Neale D. Hind
To me it looks as though the header does match the rule so I can't
see why it doesn't get routed properly.

check your folder routing order

That didn't help. I put my 'shopping' folder at the top but it still
went to 'pending'.

An update - I turned OFF 'Accept dead letter mail' for Inbox;Pending
and the custom rule routeing then worked. So it seems as though 'Accept
dead letter mail' is overriding custom rule routeing. That's not how I
thought it was supposed to work though. And I'm not comfortable with
deactivating dead letter mail.

According to the Help file

"If there are some dead letter folders but none of their rules accept
the message then it is delivered to the first dead letter folder in the
folder routeing order list."

But this is not happening for me. Even though there *is* a valid custom
accept rule the mail is being routed to the dead letter folder.

Cheers,

[Paul Terry]

I'm not comfortable with deactivating dead letter mail.

If you don't have any folder set to receive dead letter mail, the
message is simply treated as a normal (non-dead letter) email.

[Neale D. Hind]

Post by Paul Terry

I'm not comfortable with deactivating dead letter mail.

If you don't have any folder set to receive dead letter mail, the
message is simply treated as a normal (non-dead letter) email.

So where does it go if there is no folder with a matching accept rule?
E.g. if someone misspells a recipient address?

Cheers,

[Neale D. Hind]

Post by Neale D. Hind

Post by Paul Terry

I'm not comfortable with deactivating dead letter mail.

If you don't have any folder set to receive dead letter mail, the
message is simply treated as a normal (non-dead letter) email.

So where does it go if there is no folder with a matching accept rule?
E.g. if someone misspells a recipient address?

Just tested. It goes to 'Inbox'.

Cheers,

[Roy Brown]

Post by Neale D. Hind

Post by Neale D. Hind

Post by Gerard Alan Latham

Post by Neale D. Hind
To me it looks as though the header does match the rule so I can't
see why it doesn't get routed properly.

check your folder routing order

That didn't help. I put my 'shopping' folder at the top but it still
went to 'pending'.

An update - I turned OFF 'Accept dead letter mail' for Inbox;Pending
and the custom rule routeing then worked. So it seems as though 'Accept
dead letter mail' is overriding custom rule routeing. That's not how I
thought it was supposed to work though.

If you mark one or more folders as 'Accept Dead Letter', then dead
letters are only considered against those folders, and not against any
others.

So if you have a dead letter, and a rule in a non-Dead-Letter folder
that is intended to route it, it will never even see that rule.

That's probably what's happening here.

Post by Neale D. Hind
And I'm not comfortable with deactivating dead letter mail.

You aren't. If you have no folders marked for ADL, then DLs are just
treated like any other mail. That's probably what you want.

Only people who want special rules or processing specifically for dead
letters should mark any folder ADL, and such people need to make a very
careful study of Turnpike's rather arcane ADL rules.

The simplest example of ADL handling is to have a folder just for dead
letters; but since an ADL folder will still accept non-DLs, you need to
reject these.

So the rule you should have on such an ADL folder is 'Reject
Everything'.

Then all dead letters, and only dead letters, will wind up there.

I leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out how this works,
in apparent contravention of the rule in the folder,

[Neale D. Hind]

Post by Roy Brown
The simplest example of ADL handling is to have a folder just for dead
letters; but since an ADL folder will still accept non-DLs, you need to
reject these.
So the rule you should have on such an ADL folder is 'Reject
Everything'.
Then all dead letters, and only dead letters, will wind up there.
I leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out how this works,
in apparent contravention of the rule in the folder,

I guess that is what is meant in the help file quote I posted earlier:

According to the Help file

"If there are some dead letter folders but none of their rules accept
the message then it is delivered to the first dead letter folder in the
folder routeing order list."

In summary though, by turning off Dead Letter the routeing rules
suggested by the knowledgeable folks in this and other threads do now
work for me. Thank you all.

Cheers,