Dead Letter Folder

[hugh]

I've got a case where for reasons I can't fathom out some mail to none
existent e-mail addresses ends up in my Turnpike Inbox folder rather
than the sub-folder marked for dead letters. My username is also ticked
to receive dead letters.
My set-up has been working correctly for years so it's not the usual
culprit of folder order or rules.
I've had this occur very occasionally in the past and someone else
posted with the same problem a little while back. I don't recall there
being a solution.

I have my own domain name hosted by fasthosts with mail forwarding to my
domain.demon.co.uk
Mail arriving at fasthosts is forwarded on to demon mailbox more or less
on a one to one basis. There is a default to direct it to which I set to
***@mydomain.demon.co.uk
Normal mail is directed to the appropriate user/mailbox by routing rules
mostly based on the To part of the address.
My dead-letter box actually has a rule to accept mail addressed to spam.
The other route is spam, sent directly to me at domain.demon.co.uk and
the first part of the address can be anything.
This also ends up in my spam sub-folder under the dead-letter facility.

As I said I've had this problem very occasionally in the past. But now
I've started implementing BTYahoo mail in preparation for my broadband
move. Their system seems remarkably like the proposed new Demon system.
One username with up to 10 more sub-users. If all you mail is sent to
the master username then all mail can be collected by one POP3
connection.

From tests so far all valid mail is routed into my Inbox sub-folders as
expected, but mail with an invalid addresses ends up consistently in my
TP Inbox which is not set for dead letter mail.

I have configured fasthost to send my unrecognised mail to my BTYahoo
main account. I have also tried setting up a sub account but same
results.

Here's a header - any help gratefully received. I sent the mail from
demon account addressed to ***@mydomain.co.uk

Received: from mail.btinternet.com by mydomain.demon.co.uk with POP3
id
<APJvUtQAAWQqT3sGTQ7+RgGK1mQ."***@btinternet.com"@mail.btintern
et.com>
for <"***@btinternet.com"@mail.btinternet.com>;
Tue, 3 Apr 2012 15:22:59 +0100
X-Apparently-To: ***@btinternet.com via 212.82.111.242; Tue,
03 Apr 2012 14:16:45 +0000
Received-SPF: none (domain of mydomain.co.uk does not designate
permitted sender hosts)
X-YMailISG: 1O8dCAUWLDsWdkupCk4z1qgFFkA81tF7nsy2InBhY9T.4Z2P
wS.JKQKJheO4tcbLrHpgNCnFe1rKOnr4noeS6oSPxMZZacPbVx54oGHmPfjj
j2ab5CRC05tX5HB2ahhM8KlSOdR2Qb2spwCB5v6uM2FaU_d5bUAC0dOz_4VK
sg0XB5Ar8xIUK733_3UrW0ZDEJ66I2BSoVxtB.WwWt2.QOv8iH1izg_LZKkX
jUITJt._lp1c7NPWKGrYzRU3j._CvK7mXN8_K_RguvpRq26LdAvtrAtO_6go
YB_a2sZu2TI1kE6t62YXVQ1J93iU4N3vyhdEQiQaZYGXg86HxttWFpRY5isa
ULXaV1FB9hFUGwsvfEXJzQprkQ--
X-Originating-IP: [213.171.216.160]
Authentication-Results: mta1001.bt.mail.ukl.yahoo.com
from=mydomain.co.uk; domainkeys=neutral (no sig); from=mydomain.co.uk;
dkim=neutral (no sig)
Received: from 127.0.0.1 (EHLO smtp-in-160.livemail.co.uk)
(213.171.216.160)
by mta1001.bt.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 14:16:45
+0000
Received: from Postfix filter 42a77884ce2a0a03efc6bb50a6dcdb21
(smtp-in-160 [127.0.0.1])
by smtp-in-160.livemail.co.uk (Postfix) with SMTP id ABAF2260026
for <***@mydomain.co.uk>; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 15:16:45 +0100
(BST)
Received: from lon1-post-3.mail.demon.net (lon1-post-3.mail.demon.net
[195.173.77.150])
by smtp-in-160.livemail.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id
A0B13260026
for <***@mydomain.co.uk>; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 15:16:45 +0100
(BST)
Received: from mydomain.demon.co.uk ([80.177.121.199])
by lon1-post-3.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
id 1SF4Wp-0007mE-eG
for ***@mydomain.co.uk; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 14:16:44 +0000
Message-ID: <***@mydomain.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 15:16:05 +0100
To: ***@mydomain.co.uk
From: hugh <***@mydomain.co.uk>
Subject: Trial in one domain
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed
User-Agent: Turnpike/6.07-M (<56ZmGIOVKUXwbwwfvViTw6yAkL>)
X-Original-To: ***@mydomain.co.uk
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAARp1Nns=
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==

[Jim Crowther]

Post by hugh
Received: from mail.btinternet.com by mydomain.demon.co.uk with POP3
id
net.com>
Tue, 3 Apr 2012 15:22:59 +0100
03 Apr 2012 14:16:45 +0000

[]

Post by hugh
X-Originating-IP: [213.171.216.160]
Authentication-Results: mta1001.bt.mail.ukl.yahoo.com
from=mydomain.co.uk; domainkeys=neutral (no sig); from=mydomain.co.uk;
dkim=neutral (no sig)
Received: from 127.0.0.1 (EHLO smtp-in-160.livemail.co.uk)
(213.171.216.160)
by mta1001.bt.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 14:16:45
+0000
Received: from Postfix filter 42a77884ce2a0a03efc6bb50a6dcdb21
(smtp-in-160 [127.0.0.1])
by smtp-in-160.livemail.co.uk (Postfix) with SMTP id
ABAF2260026

So mail to ***@my... has been re-written to ***@bt... - and
TP routes according to its perception of who the mail was addressed to -
in this case it thinks it's to ***@bt... as that's the first
'Received...for' header after the TP inserted one.

When using a catch-all address such as ***@bt... (as I do for
nearly all my domains) the dead-letter rules become rather convoluted to
plan for - best to forget them and to re-think some of the folder
acceptance rules into custom ones, paying special attention to the
folder routing order.

HTH...

[hugh]

Post by hugh
Received: from mail.btinternet.com by mydomain.demon.co.uk with POP3
id
net.com>
Tue, 3 Apr 2012 15:22:59 +0100
03 Apr 2012 14:16:45 +0000

[]

Post by hugh
X-Originating-IP: [213.171.216.160]
Authentication-Results: mta1001.bt.mail.ukl.yahoo.com
from=mydomain.co.uk; domainkeys=neutral (no sig); from=mydomain.co.uk;
dkim=neutral (no sig)
Received: from 127.0.0.1 (EHLO smtp-in-160.livemail.co.uk)
(213.171.216.160)
by mta1001.bt.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; Tue, 03 Apr 2012
14:16:45 +0000
Received: from Postfix filter 42a77884ce2a0a03efc6bb50a6dcdb21
(smtp-in-160 [127.0.0.1])
by smtp-in-160.livemail.co.uk (Postfix) with SMTP id
ABAF2260026

and TP routes according to its perception of who the mail was addressed
first 'Received...for' header after the TP inserted one.

But I still don't understand why TP then dumps it in my top level Inbox,
which is the bottom folder in my folder order, immediately below my
"Spam" folder which is also my dead letter box.

nearly all my domains) the dead-letter rules become rather convoluted
to plan for - best to forget them and to re-think some of the folder
acceptance rules into custom ones, paying special attention to the
folder routing order.
HTH...

All my other e-mails are routing successfully into the appropriate in
box according to straightforward rules set through the dialogue box.

I'm not very familiar with (aka totally ignorant of) custom rules
syntax. It's always looked horribly complicated. Maybe I'll just live
with the odd spam turning up in Inbox.
Incidentally Bts antispam seems a bit more aggressive, and better than
Demon's. Stuff which Cloudmark allowed through which Norton flagged is
picked up in my BT account and dumped in the Spam box.
I've set it to empty after 30 days so plenty of time to browse through
and look for any false positives.

[Roy Brown]

In message <DBoUXvFM3wePFAnW@[127.0.0.1]>, hugh <hugh@[127.0.0.1]>
writing at 15:48:44 in his/her local time opines:-

(For original content, see Hugh's post above)

The fine Help is unclear on this, but I'd wager that TP's Dead Letter
facility is based on the recipient, and not the 'To' - after all, you
could be a Cc: or Bcc: on the original.

This being so, I'd then make a WAG that BT/Yahoo/whoever is rewriting
the headers such that the 'recipient' is a valid email address of yours
(and also therefore a TP-known one), such that TP does not treat it as a
dead letter.

I'm not sure what might be the best way to solve this :-(

One idea that occurs to me, to replicate the Dead Letter functionality,
might be to put the Dead Letter folder first, set up with explicit rules
to Reject mail for each of your known aliases.

But, though it's a possible workaround, it's a bit cumbersome. Perhaps
someone else will come along with a better idea.....

[hugh]

Post by Roy Brown
writing at 15:48:44 in his/her local time opines:-
(For original content, see Hugh's post above)
The fine Help is unclear on this, but I'd wager that TP's Dead Letter
facility is based on the recipient, and not the 'To' - after all, you
could be a Cc: or Bcc: on the original.

But Dead Letter should be simply for mail not accepted anywhere else.
The path through BT is the same for all mail bearing in mind that it is
all originating at mydomain.co.uk.

Post by Roy Brown
This being so, I'd then make a WAG that BT/Yahoo/whoever is rewriting
the headers such that the 'recipient' is a valid email address of yours
(and also therefore a TP-known one), such that TP does not treat it as
a dead letter.

But if that was the case surely TP would put it in the appropriate
inbox, or if none existed then in the Dead letter box.

Post by Roy Brown
I'm not sure what might be the best way to solve this :-(
One idea that occurs to me, to replicate the Dead Letter functionality,
might be to put the Dead Letter folder first, set up with explicit
rules to Reject mail for each of your known aliases.
But, though it's a possible workaround, it's a bit cumbersome. Perhaps
someone else will come along with a better idea.....

I think it might be easier just to put up with it arriving in my top
level Inbox, which incidentally is at the bottom of the folder routing
list, below my Dead Letter box

[Roy Brown]

In message <fnhzOJEtyGfPFAu6@[127.0.0.1]>, hugh <hugh@[127.0.0.1]>
writing at 16:45:49 in his/her local time opines:-

Post by hugh

Post by Roy Brown
writing at 15:48:44 in his/her local time opines:-
(For original content, see Hugh's post above)
The fine Help is unclear on this, but I'd wager that TP's Dead Letter
facility is based on the recipient, and not the 'To' - after all, you
could be a Cc: or Bcc: on the original.

But Dead Letter should be simply for mail not accepted anywhere else.

Not quite. To quote the Help: "Dead letter mail is mail which cannot be
delivered to any seat, usually because the local part of the email
address is not recognised."

"Not accepted" could also relate to non-Dead Letter mail for which there
is no specific acceptance rule in any folder; and such mail ends up in
the Inbox.

Which is what you are seeing happen; could there be a confusion in your
mind based on this subtle difference?

Post by hugh
The path through BT is the same for all mail bearing in mind that it is
all originating at mydomain.co.uk.

Post by Roy Brown
This being so, I'd then make a WAG that BT/Yahoo/whoever is rewriting
the headers such that the 'recipient' is a valid email address of
yours (and also therefore a TP-known one), such that TP does not treat
it as a dead letter.

But if that was the case surely TP would put it in the appropriate
inbox, or if none existed then in the Dead letter box.

No; he default for non-Dead Letters, as above, is the Inbox - the folder
designated as Inbox in TP, always at the end of your folder routeing and
immovable from there, and in which you cannot set any rules.

And where it says "This is the default folder. It accepts all mail not
accepted elsewhere".

Which is always true, even for Dead Letters. When there is at least one
Dead Letter folder, Dead Letters not otherwise routed are accepted in
the first Dead Letter folder in the routing, in preference to being
accepted by the Inbox.

When there is no Dead Letter folder, Dead Letters are routed exactly
like other mail, just as if they weren't Dead Letters. Then, they might
end up in the Inbox.

But as you have a Dead Letter folder, nothing that goes in the Inbox can
be a Dead Letter. Ergo, TP can't be classifying the mail you are having
puzzles with as Dead Letter mail.

Post by hugh

Post by Roy Brown
I'm not sure what might be the best way to solve this :-(
One idea that occurs to me, to replicate the Dead Letter
functionality, might be to put the Dead Letter folder first, set up
with explicit rules to Reject mail for each of your known aliases.
But, though it's a possible workaround, it's a bit cumbersome. Perhaps
someone else will come along with a better idea.....

I think it might be easier just to put up with it arriving in my top
level Inbox, which incidentally is at the bottom of the folder routing
list

as it always must be

Post by hugh
, below my Dead Letter box

as it happens here.

I think it's no biggie to put up with it, as you suggest. And it would
be mind-bendingly hard, if not impossible, to exactly replicate TP's
Dead Letter handling with folder rules on non-Dead Letters.

But never let it be said that we would simply try to explain your issue
without also trying to think of the best workaround we could, even if
just as an intellectual exercise :-)

[hugh]

Post by Roy Brown
writing at 16:45:49 in his/her local time opines:-

Post by hugh

Post by Roy Brown
writing at 15:48:44 in his/her local time opines:-
(For original content, see Hugh's post above)
The fine Help is unclear on this, but I'd wager that TP's Dead Letter
facility is based on the recipient, and not the 'To' - after all, you
could be a Cc: or Bcc: on the original.

But Dead Letter should be simply for mail not accepted anywhere else.

Not quite. To quote the Help: "Dead letter mail is mail which cannot be
delivered to any seat, usually because the local part of the email
address is not recognised."
"Not accepted" could also relate to non-Dead Letter mail for which
there is no specific acceptance rule in any folder; and such mail ends
up in the Inbox.
Which is what you are seeing happen; could there be a confusion in your
mind based on this subtle difference?

Post by hugh
The path through BT is the same for all mail bearing in mind that it
is all originating at mydomain.co.uk.

Post by Roy Brown
This being so, I'd then make a WAG that BT/Yahoo/whoever is rewriting
the headers such that the 'recipient' is a valid email address of
yours (and also therefore a TP-known one), such that TP does not
treat it as a dead letter.

But if that was the case surely TP would put it in the appropriate
inbox, or if none existed then in the Dead letter box.

No; he default for non-Dead Letters, as above, is the Inbox - the
folder designated as Inbox in TP, always at the end of your folder
routeing and immovable from there, and in which you cannot set any rules.
And where it says "This is the default folder. It accepts all mail not
accepted elsewhere".
Which is always true, even for Dead Letters. When there is at least one
Dead Letter folder, Dead Letters not otherwise routed are accepted in
the first Dead Letter folder in the routing, in preference to being
accepted by the Inbox.
When there is no Dead Letter folder, Dead Letters are routed exactly
like other mail, just as if they weren't Dead Letters. Then, they might
end up in the Inbox.
But as you have a Dead Letter folder, nothing that goes in the Inbox
can be a Dead Letter. Ergo, TP can't be classifying the mail you are
having puzzles with as Dead Letter mail.

Post by hugh

Post by Roy Brown
I'm not sure what might be the best way to solve this :-(
One idea that occurs to me, to replicate the Dead Letter
functionality, might be to put the Dead Letter folder first, set up
with explicit rules to Reject mail for each of your known aliases.
But, though it's a possible workaround, it's a bit cumbersome.
Perhaps someone else will come along with a better idea.....

I think it might be easier just to put up with it arriving in my top
level Inbox, which incidentally is at the bottom of the folder routing
list

as it always must be

Post by hugh
, below my Dead Letter box

as it happens here.
I think it's no biggie to put up with it, as you suggest. And it would
be mind-bendingly hard, if not impossible, to exactly replicate TP's
Dead Letter handling with folder rules on non-Dead Letters.
But never let it be said that we would simply try to explain your issue
without also trying to think of the best workaround we could, even if
just as an intellectual exercise :-)

Well just to complicate things I did another test.
Sent an e-mail from ***@mydomain.co.uk
To ***@mydomain.co.uk
cc'd to ***@mydomain.co.uyk
bcc'd to ***@mydomain.co.uk

and this time all 3 copies have ended up in my Spam (dead letter)
folder.

Bemused!!

[Kate Brown]

Post by hugh

Post by Roy Brown
writing at 16:45:49 in his/her local time opines:-

Post by hugh

Post by Roy Brown
writing at 15:48:44 in his/her local time opines:-
(For original content, see Hugh's post above)
The fine Help is unclear on this, but I'd wager that TP's Dead
Letter facility is based on the recipient, and not the 'To' - after
all, you could be a Cc: or Bcc: on the original.

But Dead Letter should be simply for mail not accepted anywhere else.

Not quite. To quote the Help: "Dead letter mail is mail which cannot
be delivered to any seat, usually because the local part of the email
address is not recognised."
"Not accepted" could also relate to non-Dead Letter mail for which
there is no specific acceptance rule in any folder; and such mail ends
up in the Inbox.
Which is what you are seeing happen; could there be a confusion in
your mind based on this subtle difference?

Post by hugh
The path through BT is the same for all mail bearing in mind that it
is all originating at mydomain.co.uk.

Post by Roy Brown
This being so, I'd then make a WAG that BT/Yahoo/whoever is
rewriting the headers such that the 'recipient' is a valid email
address of yours (and also therefore a TP-known one), such that TP
does not treat it as a dead letter.

But if that was the case surely TP would put it in the appropriate
inbox, or if none existed then in the Dead letter box.

No; he default for non-Dead Letters, as above, is the Inbox - the
folder designated as Inbox in TP, always at the end of your folder
routeing and immovable from there, and in which you cannot set any rules.
And where it says "This is the default folder. It accepts all mail not
accepted elsewhere".
Which is always true, even for Dead Letters. When there is at least
one Dead Letter folder, Dead Letters not otherwise routed are accepted
the first Dead Letter folder in the routing, in preference to being
accepted by the Inbox.
When there is no Dead Letter folder, Dead Letters are routed exactly
like other mail, just as if they weren't Dead Letters. Then, they
might end up in the Inbox.
But as you have a Dead Letter folder, nothing that goes in the Inbox
can be a Dead Letter. Ergo, TP can't be classifying the mail you are
having puzzles with as Dead Letter mail.

Post by hugh

Post by Roy Brown
I'm not sure what might be the best way to solve this :-(
One idea that occurs to me, to replicate the Dead Letter
functionality, might be to put the Dead Letter folder first, set up
explicit rules to Reject mail for each of your known aliases.
But, though it's a possible workaround, it's a bit cumbersome.
Perhaps someone else will come along with a better idea.....

I think it might be easier just to put up with it arriving in my top
level Inbox, which incidentally is at the bottom of the folder
routing list

as it always must be

Post by hugh
, below my Dead Letter box

as it happens here.
I think it's no biggie to put up with it, as you suggest. And it would
be mind-bendingly hard, if not impossible, to exactly replicate TP's
Dead Letter handling with folder rules on non-Dead Letters.
But never let it be said that we would simply try to explain your
issue without also trying to think of the best workaround we could,
even if just as an intellectual exercise :-)

Well just to complicate things I did another test.
and this time all 3 copies have ended up in my Spam (dead letter)
folder.
Bemused!!

I have a similar problem - I think. I have lots of folders set up to
catch various aliases. My Inbox is my dead-letter folder. It catches
email sent to existing but non-routed aliases. However, email to
non-existent aliases lands up in quite another folder. I can't seem to
write a rule to reject them either, but that's another problem.

[hugh]

Post by Kate Brown

Post by hugh

Post by Roy Brown
writing at 16:45:49 in his/her local time opines:-

Post by hugh

Post by Roy Brown
writing at 15:48:44 in his/her local time opines:-
(For original content, see Hugh's post above)
The fine Help is unclear on this, but I'd wager that TP's Dead
Letter facility is based on the recipient, and not the 'To' - after
all, you could be a Cc: or Bcc: on the original.

But Dead Letter should be simply for mail not accepted anywhere else.

Not quite. To quote the Help: "Dead letter mail is mail which cannot
be delivered to any seat, usually because the local part of the email
address is not recognised."
"Not accepted" could also relate to non-Dead Letter mail for which
there is no specific acceptance rule in any folder; and such mail
ends up in the Inbox.
Which is what you are seeing happen; could there be a confusion in
your mind based on this subtle difference?

Post by hugh
The path through BT is the same for all mail bearing in mind that it
is all originating at mydomain.co.uk.

Post by Roy Brown
This being so, I'd then make a WAG that BT/Yahoo/whoever is
rewriting the headers such that the 'recipient' is a valid email
address of yours (and also therefore a TP-known one), such that TP
does not treat it as a dead letter.

But if that was the case surely TP would put it in the appropriate
inbox, or if none existed then in the Dead letter box.

No; he default for non-Dead Letters, as above, is the Inbox - the
folder designated as Inbox in TP, always at the end of your folder
routeing and immovable from there, and in which you cannot set any rules.
And where it says "This is the default folder. It accepts all mail
not accepted elsewhere".
Which is always true, even for Dead Letters. When there is at least
one Dead Letter folder, Dead Letters not otherwise routed are
accepted the first Dead Letter folder in the routing, in preference
to being accepted by the Inbox.
When there is no Dead Letter folder, Dead Letters are routed exactly
like other mail, just as if they weren't Dead Letters. Then, they
might end up in the Inbox.
But as you have a Dead Letter folder, nothing that goes in the Inbox
can be a Dead Letter. Ergo, TP can't be classifying the mail you are
having puzzles with as Dead Letter mail.

Post by hugh

Post by Roy Brown
I'm not sure what might be the best way to solve this :-(
One idea that occurs to me, to replicate the Dead Letter
functionality, might be to put the Dead Letter folder first, set up
explicit rules to Reject mail for each of your known aliases.
But, though it's a possible workaround, it's a bit cumbersome.
Perhaps someone else will come along with a better idea.....

I think it might be easier just to put up with it arriving in my top
level Inbox, which incidentally is at the bottom of the folder
routing list

as it always must be

Post by hugh
, below my Dead Letter box

as it happens here.
I think it's no biggie to put up with it, as you suggest. And it
would be mind-bendingly hard, if not impossible, to exactly replicate
TP's Dead Letter handling with folder rules on non-Dead Letters.
But never let it be said that we would simply try to explain your
issue without also trying to think of the best workaround we could,
even if just as an intellectual exercise :-)

Well just to complicate things I did another test.
and this time all 3 copies have ended up in my Spam (dead letter)
folder.
Bemused!!

I have a similar problem - I think. I have lots of folders set up to
catch various aliases. My Inbox is my dead-letter folder. It catches
email sent to existing but non-routed aliases. However, email to
non-existent aliases lands up in quite another folder. I can't seem to
write a rule to reject them either, but that's another problem.

Configure/email routing/envelope rejection Tick box to reject
unrecognised recipients.

[Roy Brown]

In message <cIWD1kMz6LfPFA9$@[127.0.0.1]>, hugh <hugh@[127.0.0.1]>
writing at 22:35:47 in his/her local time opines:-

Post by hugh
Well just to complicate things I did another test.
and this time all 3 copies have ended up in my Spam (dead letter)
folder.
Bemused!!

Thinking again:

IIRC, TP skips the first 'for' in the headers and uses the next one it
finds. So your original example should have indeed been treated as dead
letter mail.

However, Mike Barnes did, I believe, find a bug in this process, which I
don't think was ever fixed.

And that second 'for' was a pretty long way down, so maybe TP gave up,
or used an alternate rule.

All this is way back in the mists of time, so you'd have to
Google-Groups d.i.s.t. for confirmation of this, or otherwise, and to
look at the 'How Did This Email Get to Where it Did?' thread, a brave
but eventually abandoned attempt to enumerate the rules by which TP puts
stuff where it does.

(I'd look up the references myself normally, but not at these prices :-)
)

Are the headers of the emails that went where you expected pretty much
like the headers of the first example you gave, or is the second 'for'
nearer the top in these?

As your DLF is also a Spam folder (and indeed, a conventional mail
folder anyway), I suppose you have eliminated the possibility that these
emails wouldn't just wind up there through the normal operation of your
mail routeing rules, even if TP didn't think they were dead letters?

Roy

[hugh]

Post by Roy Brown
writing at 22:35:47 in his/her local time opines:-

Post by hugh
Well just to complicate things I did another test.
and this time all 3 copies have ended up in my Spam (dead letter)
folder.
Bemused!!

IIRC, TP skips the first 'for' in the headers and uses the next one it
finds. So your original example should have indeed been treated as dead
letter mail.

Hat could explain another problem I've having, where with multiple
recipients in the To field each copy is ending up at the first entry -
but only when the e-mail has been round the houses via Fasthost and
BTYahoo. But more of that later when I have done some more testing

Post by Roy Brown
However, Mike Barnes did, I believe, find a bug in this process, which
I don't think was ever fixed.
And that second 'for' was a pretty long way down, so maybe TP gave up,
or used an alternate rule.

You may be right as it is variable.

Post by Roy Brown
All this is way back in the mists of time, so you'd have to
Google-Groups d.i.s.t. for confirmation of this, or otherwise, and to
look at the 'How Did This Email Get to Where it Did?' thread, a brave
but eventually abandoned attempt to enumerate the rules by which TP
puts stuff where it does.
(I'd look up the references myself normally, but not at these prices
:-) )
Are the headers of the emails that went where you expected pretty much
like the headers of the first example you gave, or is the second 'for'
nearer the top in these?
As your DLF is also a Spam folder (and indeed, a conventional mail
folder anyway), I suppose you have eliminated the possibility that
these emails wouldn't just wind up there through the normal operation
of your mail routeing rules, even if TP didn't think they were dead
letters?
Roy

What I have established is that if an e-mail is for a valid alias but
there is not acceptance rule on any folder it ends up in Inbox, which is
fair enough as it is not a dead letter in that case and so it ends up at
the folder which is at the bottom of the list i.e. Inbox.
I've now deleted that alias and we'll see what happens when the next bit
of spam arrives for it - I get about one per day to news0205, which was
my news posts reply to address from Feb 2005 which has only just in the
last month or so started to get spam.

[Wm...]

Sat, 7 Apr 2012 13:56:14 <***@x.x>
demon.ip.support.turnpike Roy Brown

Post by Roy Brown
All this is way back in the mists of time, so you'd have to
Google-Groups d.i.s.t. for confirmation of this, or otherwise, and to
look at the 'How Did This Email Get to Where it Did?' thread, a brave
but eventually abandoned attempt to enumerate the rules by which TP
puts stuff where it does.

That was me and us back when there was an us. The tiny differences left
over at the end were esoteric and really didn't seem worth the trouble
as the vast majority of people would never come across them.

Heck, the people at TP weren't even absolutely sure without looking at
code.

Anyway, I'm missing the beginning of the thread and don't really do
usenet much these days so I'm not going to request it unless I have to.
I may remember something if someone reminds me what the question is.

Post by Roy Brown
(I'd look up the references myself normally, but not at these prices
:-) )

I noticed on a skim of the group some time ago that you and M are at
sea. I hope you are both well. I've always thought a cruise would be a
bit dull as opposed to being on a working boat but a gf of mine went on
one recently (no hi jacks at sea, no vessel falling over next to the
coast and no engine room failures resulting in stranding) and I may be
persuaded. My question is, what do you do all day? I think, time was,
you started with a pink gin around 12, moved on to the tables for food
around one, threw a quiot for a bit and then gambled until it was time
to change into your third set of clothes for more food, etc.

What is Mrs B making of such presumed indolence?

Wm waves to all TP folk.

[Roy Brown]

In message <BGVsfVWNmpiPFwGw@[127.0.0.1]>, Wm...
<***@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writing at 10:49:01 in his/her
local time opines:-

Post by Wm...
demon.ip.support.turnpike Roy Brown

Post by Roy Brown
All this is way back in the mists of time, so you'd have to
Google-Groups d.i.s.t. for confirmation of this, or otherwise, and to
look at the 'How Did This Email Get to Where it Did?' thread, a brave
but eventually abandoned attempt to enumerate the rules by which TP
puts stuff where it does.

That was me and us back when there was an us. The tiny differences
left over at the end were esoteric and really didn't seem worth the
trouble as the vast majority of people would never come across them.
Heck, the people at TP weren't even absolutely sure without looking at
code.
Anyway, I'm missing the beginning of the thread and don't really do
usenet much these days so I'm not going to request it unless I have to.
I may remember something if someone reminds me what the question is.

Nothing to worry about... I think it might go back to the bug Mike
Barnes found, which I don't think was ever fixed...

Post by Wm...

Post by Roy Brown
(I'd look up the references myself normally, but not at these prices
:-) )

I noticed on a skim of the group some time ago that you and M are at
sea. I hope you are both well. I've always thought a cruise would be
a bit dull as opposed to being on a working boat but a gf of mine went
on one recently (no hi jacks at sea, no vessel falling over next to the
coast and no engine room failures resulting in stranding) and I may be
persuaded.

Hijacking was not much of a risk, they reckoned, for a ship of our size.
But we still sailed without lights at night, and with armed guards on
board, and with various sorts of ECM lashed to the decks, which they
were quite keen on us not inspecting too closely :-)

The other two ships you mention were from a sister cruise line in the
same overarching company, but run perhaps a little differently to ours
:-)

Post by Wm...
My question is, what do you do all day? I think, time was, you started
with a pink gin around 12, moved on to the tables for food around one,
threw a quiot for a bit and then gambled until it was time to change
into your third set of clothes for more food, etc.

It's a punishing schedule, if you want it. Deck walking from 8am, all
sorts of daytime activities (including, indeed, quoits) and then music
and dancing till 2am the next morning. Food freely available almost all
the time, but pink gins must be bought and paid for.

Dressing up, to various standards, strictly enforced only in certain
locations, so you wouldn't starve even if you didn't bring a dinner
jacket.

Post by Wm...
What is Mrs B making of such presumed indolence?

Tai chi, yoga, lots of books, films in the cinema, shows in the theatre,
staring out of the window....

And of course, about 34 stops in various exotic ports along the way.

But it is a rather indolent life, and though we enjoyed it, we were
there to see the world, and I don't think we'll be joining the ranks of
the 'serial cruisers' who can't wait to get on the next one going :-)

Post by Wm...
Wm waves to all TP folk.