Re: tflags publish <= What is this good for? (Re: Rule for: Subject contains email address from To: header?)

On 2026-06-01 at 07:56:41 UTC-0400 (Mon, 1 Jun 2026 13:56:41 +0200)
Benoit Panizzon <[email protected]>
is rumored to have said:

> Hi
>
> I figured out the culpit why a rule did not work was tflags publish

That's obviously not good.

The 'publish' tflag exists to force a rule in the full set of rules in ou=
r collection into the active list that is distributed.

> Actual finding in trying to get the shipped rule TO_IN_SUBJ to match
> anything. Just created a new rule with one of the regexp:
>
> header          TEST_EMAIL_SUBJ_TO      ALL =3D~ /\nSubject:(?=3D[^\n]{=
0,200}@)[^\n]{0,200}([a-z][a-z0-9_.]{3,80}@(?:[a-z0-9_]{1,80}\.){1,4}[a-z=
]{2,30})(?:[^\n]+\n)*To:\s+[^\n]{0,100}\1[^a-z0-9.]/ism
> describe        TEST_EMAIL_SUBJ_TO      Testing: Email in Subject then =
To
> score           TEST_EMAIL_SUBJ_TO      1
> tflags          TEST_EMAIL_SUBJ_TO      publish
>
> When I remove the tflags line, the rule is run and matches as
> expected when invoking SpamAssassin from MIMEDefang.
>
> When I keep the tflags line, then the rule seems to only run when
> calling SpamAssassin from command line.

This does not make sense. The publish tflag should not have any effect on=
 how messages are checked.

As described, this is definitely a bug.

> So I wonder if there might be some setting somewhere to cause
> spamassassin not running rules with a specific tflags in some
> situations?

Not intentionally.




-- =

 Bill Cole
 [email protected] or [email protected]
 (AKA @[email protected] and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses=
)
 Please keep discussion mailing list replies *on-list*
 Not Currently Available For Hire