Sorry guys, but I have yet another problem with access_rules :-(

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Today, I discovered that two people had sent messages to a list and both had
gotten messages sent back to them saying that they had been denied when they
had not been. I also know that other people had sent messages and they had not
been sent back deny messages.

The settings for the two people who were denied were:

Person1
          noeliminatecc
          nohide
          nohidepost
          nopostblock
          prefix
          replyto
          selfcopy
          norewritefrom
          noackstall
          ackdeny
          noackpost
          noackreject

Person2
          noeliminatecc
          nohide
          nohidepost
          postblock
          prefix
          replyto
          selfcopy
          norewritefrom
          noackstall
          ackdeny
          noackpost
          noackreject

So as far as I can see, the only difference between the two people are that
one has postblock and the other does not. The person who had postblock set got
her denial message after it had been accepted.

The access_rules for the list is

configset framcom access_rules <<ENDAAB

post
deny, reply=NONE
@denylist

post
unset=dup_checksum, unset=dup_partial_checksum
ALL

post
deny, replyfile=UnsubFoundInText
$admin_unsub >= 50

post
allow
@goodguys

post
deny, replyfile=MultiTo
$admin_bothlist >= 2

post
deny, replyfile=MultiTo3
$admin_bothlist3 >= 2

post
deny, replyfile=BccNotAllowed
$blind_copy != 0

post
deny, replyfile=NoSubject
$admin_nosub >= 2

post
consult, reason="Address was not found in the subscriber list"
!@MAIN

post
consult, reason="Address is in the supervised list."
@badguys

ENDAAB

and the value of the admin_body is


configset framcom admin_body <<ENDAAC
/unsubscribe/ 0,50,unsub
ENDAAC

The replyfile that was sent back to the posters was the UnsubFoundInText, and
the message had an attachment that was the original message that the person
sent. The catch is that the attachment showed the footer had already been
added to the message. And the footer was where the unzubzcribe string had been
added. So my theory is that the message_footer which has the unzubzcribe
inztruction added on was somehow visible at the time that the access_rules are
being processed.

I have tried to simulate this using a test list and I have not succeeded. If
someone has any ideas I am sort of stuck, and meanwhile I seem to be
alienating people.

What is the sequence of events regarding evaluation of admin_body,
access_ruled, message_footers and the accept after a consult because of
postblock? And the same question if postblock is not set?

Anyone? Please?

- --
Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like a banana. Stranger things have  .0.
happened but none stranger than this. Does your driver's license say Organ ..0
Donor?Black holes are where God divided by zero. Listen to me! We are all- 000
individuals! What if this weren't a hypothetical question?
steveo at syslang.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAko8ZD8ACgkQRIVy4fC+NyR3CQCcDDuUwUhelIZwR/Tx9P85k2wC
wKQAnAsF0dtoM14yf5O8X44OrZ7TMDU5
=eueM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----