procmail - what else can cause "No match"?

I have a .procmailrc which pulls in (through INCLUDE) a number of other
rc files containing recipes. The recipe files are, for the most part,
extremely simple tests on the body, looking for simple strings. So, for
example, I have:

:0 B
* Blabla believes
{
... do stuff here ...
}

The 'stuff' includes invoking 'formail', making a copy of the message,
and calling a Perl script.

Most of the recipes - which are all of this form - match when they are
supposed to. Some, however, do not. Instead, they seem to fail
consistently. When I look at the logs, I see "No match on ..." followed
by the target string.

If I open the message in a text editor, I find that the body does
indeed include the string that I'm trying to match. Moreover, if I run
the relevant recipe file in a test environment (set up as described at
http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/info/proctips.html#testbench), the recipes that
failed to match when run against incoming mail now match successfully
against the same message.

There is no obvious pattern to the recipes that fail to match, which
really are as simple as the one shown above.

I am running procmail 3.22 on FreeBSD 4.7.

Is there anything that can cause procmail to report 'No match' when it
should have matched? Errors in the specified actions? Failure to fork a
process?

I'd be very grateful for any suggestions that could help me identify a
problem, or further tests that I could run to work out why my recipes
are failing.

Thanks,

Angus McIntyre

Re: procmail - what else can cause "No match"?

angusmci wrote:
> I have a .procmailrc which pulls in (through INCLUDE) a number of other
> rc files containing recipes. The recipe files are, for the most part,
> extremely simple tests on the body, looking for simple strings. So, for
> example, I have:
>
> :0 B
> * Blabla believes
> {
> ... do stuff here ...
> }
>
> The 'stuff' includes invoking 'formail', making a copy of the message,
> and calling a Perl script.
>
> Most of the recipes - which are all of this form - match when they are
> supposed to. Some, however, do not. Instead, they seem to fail
> consistently. When I look at the logs, I see "No match on ..." followed
> by the target string.
>
> If I open the message in a text editor, I find that the body does
> indeed include the string that I'm trying to match. Moreover, if I run
> the relevant recipe file in a test environment (set up as described at
> http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/info/proctips.html#testbench), the recipes that
> failed to match when run against incoming mail now match successfully
> against the same message.
>
> There is no obvious pattern to the recipes that fail to match, which
> really are as simple as the one shown above.
>
> I am running procmail 3.22 on FreeBSD 4.7.
>
> Is there anything that can cause procmail to report 'No match' when it
> should have matched? Errors in the specified actions? Failure to fork a
> process?
>
> I'd be very grateful for any suggestions that could help me identify a
> problem, or further tests that I could run to work out why my recipes
> are failing.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Angus McIntyre
>

It is impossible to say what may or may not be going one when one can
not see the recipes, the log or the message.

Not sure if you've taken into account that unless you use locking, the
log file might be updated by multiple instances of procmail at the same
time.

AK

Re: procmail - what else can cause "No match"?

In article ,
AK wrote:

> angusmci wrote:

[ ... mysterious match failure ... ]

> It is impossible to say what may or may not be going one when one can
> not see the recipes, the log or the message.

OK, sorry for giving incomplete information. Attached below. I haven't
provided the complete recipe file (or files) because that would add up
to many hundreds of recipes, but I've shown the ones that I think
_should_ match (and which indeed do match in a test environment).

> Not sure if you've taken into account that unless you use locking, the
> log file might be updated by multiple instances of procmail at the same
> time.

I hadn't, but in this specific case I don't think it is an issue: the
log entries ("No match on ...") tallied with the observed behavior (no
action taken on recipes that - apparently - should have applied).

I have only shown two recipes below, either of which should have matched
(I think). When executed in a test context, the first matches
successfully.

The log suggests that these recipes are definitely being executed
(implying that they don't fail to match because some earlier recipe
matched first). I don't believe that any other recipes or variable
settings earlier in the file might influence their behavior.

Thanks for your help,

Angus

=========================================================
recipes

:0 B
* : VNBL
{
:0 fhw
|formail -a "X-Auto-Processed: spam-stocks [VNBL.OB]"

:0 c
$PROCESSEDSPAMDIR

:0
|/home/user/bin/AutoUpdateStocks.pl VNBL.OB 339
}

:0 B
* Vinoble believes
{
:0 fhw
|formail -a "X-Auto-Processed: spam-stocks [VNBL.OB]"

:0 c
$PROCESSEDSPAMDIR

:0
|/home/user/bin/AutoUpdateStocks.pl VNBL.OB 458
}


=========================================================
log

[ ... snip ... ]

procmail: No match on ": VNBL"

[... snip ... ]

procmail: No match on "Vinoble believes"

[... snip ... ]

procmail: Match on "^X-Spam-Status: Yes"
procmail: Locking
"/home/vpopmail/domains/example.com/user-spam/Maildir/.lock
"
procmail: Assigning
"LASTFOLDER=/home/vpopmail/domains/example.com/user-spam/
Maildir/new/1124840289.7627_1.ns.example.com"
procmail: Unlocking
"/home/vpopmail/domains/example.com/user-spam/Maildir/.lo
ck"
From SRS0=BNvP=W2=srt.de=simon.sizemore_qv@bounce2.example.com Tue Aug
23 23:38:08
2005
Subject: You Too Can Profit From Microcaps
Folder: /home/vpopmail/domains/example.com/user-spam/Maildir/new/
10941



=========================================================
message
-------

Return-Path:
Delivered-To: example.com-user@example.com
Received: (qmail 7623 invoked by uid 1012); 23 Aug 2005 23:38:08 -0000
Received: from 208.210.124.76 by ns.example.com (envelope-from
, uid 1010)
with qmail-scanner-1.25
(clamdscan: 0.82/708. spamassassin: 2.64.
Clear:RC:0(208.210.124.76):SA:1(8.5/5.0):.
Processed in 4.335233 secs); 23 Aug 2005 23:38:08 -0000
X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=8.5 required=5.0
X-Spam-Level: ++++++++
Received: from fence.example.com (208.210.124.76)
by mail.example.com with SMTP; 23 Aug 2005 23:38:04 -0000
Received: from fence.example.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by fence.example.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE3139A9C
for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:38:25 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: user@example.com
Received: from fence (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by fence.example.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D05209990
for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:38:25
-0400 (EDT)
X-Pobox-Antispam: dnsbl/bl.spamcop.net returned deny: for
63.214.234.11(ns1.fyi-net.com)
X-Pobox-Antispam: dnsbl/cbl.abuseat.org returned deny: for
63.214.234.11(ns1.fyi-net.com)
X-Pobox-Antispam: dnsbl/list.dsbl.org returned deny: for
63.214.234.11(ns1.fyi-net.com)
X-Pobox-Antispam: dnsbl/dnsbl.njabl.org returned deny: for
63.214.234.11(ns1.fyi-net.com)
Received: from sestra.es (ns1.fyi-net.com [63.214.234.11])
by fence.example.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E6AD9AAA;
Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:38:16 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID:
From: "Simon Sizemore"
To: anirban@example.com, user@example.com
Subject: You Too Can Profit From Microcaps
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 21:34:25 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Newsletter - August Issue, 2005

In August's issue we are going to profile a company
involved in the Red Hot
homeland security sector. This company's st0ck is
very much undervalued
considering the potential of the industry and the
position of the company.
(The perfect time to get in)


This small treasure is: VNBL (Vinoble, Inc.)

The st0ck is trading at only O.O7 - O.O9 cents and we
expect it could hit
$0.30 - $0.35 by late September.

Huge PR campaign expected this week so grab as much as
you can up to $0.25
range. We all know it's the big announcements that
make these small gems
move.


st0ck Symbol: VNBL . OB

Current Price: $O.O7

We expect the price to go to $O.18 in next 2-3 days
We expect the price to go to $O.3O in next 3 weeks.


About the company:

Vinoble, Inc. is a holding company, which is
identifying and acquiring
operational business opportunities in the areas of
homeland security,
security information systems, and other security
services to provide long
term growth for its shareholders. Vinoble believes
that the opportunity to
build a successful business in the security sector is
unprecedented.

The terror attacks on the United States on September
11, 20O1 have changed
the security landscape for the foreseeable future.
Both physical and logical
security have become paramount for all industry
segments, especially in the
banking, healthcare and government sectors. While the
focus for Vinoble is
on North America, the opportunity for security
services is worldwide.
According to Giga, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Forrester Research,
worldwide demand for information security products and
services is set to
eclipse $46B by 2O05.

Vinoble intends to capitalize on the dramatic growth
in the security market
by delivering professional services, security
products, security training,
and managed security services. In pursuit of this
objective, Vinoble has
assembled a highly qualified team of security
professionals offering a full
range of security services. Through Vinoble's
consulting services and
integrated delivery solutions, Vinoble will help
organizations protect key
assets including persons, property, information,
brand, and reputation.


***Why we believe VNBL will give big returns on
investment***


* At this time much of VNBL's focus is on RFID (Radio
frequency
identification) technology. This is technology which
uses tiny sensors to
transmit information about a person or object
wirelessly.

* VNBL is developing a form of RFID technology which
allows companies and
governments to wirelessly track their assets and
resources. Such technology
has HUGE potential in the protection and
transportation of materials
designated "High Risk" were they to fall into the
wrong hands.

* VNBL works on integration of the two afore mentioned
systems in order to
create "High Security Space" in locales where it is
deemed necessary.
Locations which may take advantage of such systems are
airports, sea ports,
mines, nuclear facilities, and more.


***N E W S***

Vinoble's latest strategy involves applying their RFID
technology to the
mining and petrochemical industries. To this end they
have agreed to
purchase a mining property with which they plan to
develop and test their
technologies and systems. Read this latest press
release to learn more:


MALIBU, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 12,
2005--Vinoble, Inc. (OTCBB: VNBL -
News), a holding company seeking to identify long-term
growth opportunities
in the areas of homeland security, security
information systems, and other
security services, is pleased to announce that
pursuant to its news release
dated July 8, 2005, where the Company agreed to
purchase mining property in
the Red Lake District, has initiated a 43-101 report
on the Hazard Lake
Property.

The Hazard property will serve as a valuable tool for
Vinoble, in asset
value and, in addition, it will serve as a testing and
demonstration
location for RFID and GPS applications. RFID and GPS
technology will be a
valuable tool for the mining industry and will offer
protection of our
country's natural resources and commodities against
threat.

Additionally, the Company is currently seeking other
opportunities to add
value to its property holdings through acquisition.
Vinoble views the
additional assets will provide the Company and its
shareholders a
much-improved increase in shareholder value.


stoc.k Symbol: VNBL . OB

Current Price: $0.07

We expect the price to go to $0.18 in next 2-3 days
We expect the price to go to $0.30 in next 3 weeks.


Please watch this one trade on ALL WEEK!

_______________________________________

Information within this email contains "f0rwardlo0king
st4tements" within
the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of
1933 and Section 21B of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Any statements
that express or involve
discussions with respect to predictions, goals,
expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives,
assumptions or future
events or performance are not statements of historical
fact and may be
"f0rwardlo0king st4tements."
f0rwardlo0king st4tements are based on expectations,
estimates and
projections at the time the statements are made that
involve a number of
risks and uncertainties which could cause actual
results or events to differ
materially from those presently anticipated.
Forward looking statements in this action may be
identified through the use
of words such as: "projects", "foresee", "expects",
"estimates," "believes,"
"understands" "will," "part of: "anticipates," or that
by statements
indicating certain actions "may," "could," or "might"
occur. All information
provided within this email pertaining to investing,
stoc.ks, securities must
be understood as information provided and not
investment advice.
Emerging Equity Alert advises all readers and
subscribers to seek advice
from a registered professional securities
representative before deciding to
trade in stoc.ks featured within this email. None of
the material within
this report shall be construed as any kind of
investment advice. Please have
in mind that the interpretation of the writer of this
newsletter about the
news published by the company does not represent the
company official
statement and in fact may differ from the real meaning
of what the news
release meant to say. Look at the news release by
yourself and judge by
yourself about the details in it.

--
"I am here by the will of the people ... and I *will* ["Metrophage",
not leave until I get my raincoat back." Richard Kadrey]

Re: procmail - what else can cause "No match"?

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Angus McIntyre wrote:

AM> I have only shown two recipes below, either of which should have matched
AM> (I think). When executed in a test context, the first matches
AM> successfully.
AM>

Have you looked at the message in a text editor? I'm thinking here of
something like an embedded html comment that is being hidden by the reader
and when you cut and pasted the message.

Alan

( If replying by mail, please note that all "sardines" are canned.
There is also a password autoresponder but, unless this a very
old message, a "tuna" will swim right through. )

Re: procmail - what else can cause "No match"?

In article ,
Alan Clifford wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Angus McIntyre wrote:
>
> AM> I have only shown two recipes below, either of which should have matched
> AM> (I think). When executed in a test context, the first matches
> AM> successfully.
>
> Have you looked at the message in a text editor? I'm thinking here of
> something like an embedded html comment that is being hidden by the reader
> and when you cut and pasted the message.

That was my first thought. I also thought of hidden 8-bit characters.
Neither appears to be the case: the original message seems to be pure
ASCII and there's nothing hidden that could break up the target string.

Angus

--
"I am here by the will of the people ... and I *will* ["Metrophage",
not leave until I get my raincoat back." Richard Kadrey]

Re: procmail - what else can cause "No match"?

Angus McIntyre writes:
| :0 B
| * : VNBL

>> procmail: No match on ": VNBL"

The message is just right. This is not an error indication. It just
means that it tried the condition and regexp ": VNBL" which
didn't match.

| {
| :0 fhw
| |formail -a "X-Auto-Processed: spam-stocks [VNBL.OB]"
|
| :0 c
| $PROCESSEDSPAMDIR
|
| :0
| |/home/user/bin/AutoUpdateStocks.pl VNBL.OB 339
| }
|
| :0 B
| * Vinoble believes

>> procmail: No match on "Vinoble believes"

Same here. Normal message.

| {
| :0 fhw
| |formail -a "X-Auto-Processed: spam-stocks [VNBL.OB]"
|
| :0 c
| $PROCESSEDSPAMDIR
|
| :0
| |/home/user/bin/AutoUpdateStocks.pl VNBL.OB 458
| }
|
|
| =========================================================
| log
|
| [ ... snip ... ]
|
| procmail: No match on ": VNBL"
|
| [... snip ... ]
|
| procmail: No match on "Vinoble believes"
|
| [... snip ... ]
|
| procmail: Match on "^X-Spam-Status: Yes"

And the it found something to process.

Your recipes are in perfect condition.

Jari

Re: procmail - what else can cause "No match"?

On comp.mail.misc, in , "Jari Aalto" wrote:



Hello, Jari. Taking a break from posting lies about Challenge-
Responses all over the Internet, I see.

Have you noticed that your disinformation campaign is failing?

Challenge-Responses have been adopted by many of the major ISPs
and a large number of independent mail service providers, and
new applications using them are being developed with delightful
regularity.

Spammers and trolls hate Challenge-Responses, Jari, because they
reject anonymous mail.

Why do you?

Go ahead and post anything you want on the Internet. Everyone
with half-a-brain knows that any nutcase or scammer can post
anything on the Internet. There are hundreds of sites that
offer 'proof-positive' that little grey men from alien planets
are regularly abducting human beings.

But don't bother mailing anyone with a Challenge-Response
filter unless you use your real return address and read and
reply to the mail that arrives there.

Because if you don't return the Challenge-Response that your
mail elicits, your mail will be silently dumped.

That is, if it wasn't dumped for being obvious spam or troll
mail before it even reached the Challenge-Response stage of
the filter.

Guess what, Jari? Our mailboxes belong to _us_, not you.

You can't send us mail without our express permission.

Don't like it?

Take a pill.

I don't have a spam problem. I never even know when these
criminals _try_ to get their garbage in my mailboxes. But people
who take YOUR advice on spam-fighting never defeat the spammers.

How about that?

I do thank you for your list of _good_ procmail websites, even
though you have nothing to do with them and are just posting the
results of google searches here. Procmail makes such a good back
end for a Challenge-Response mail filter.

AC


--
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/
http://tinyurl.com/2t5kp
http://angel.1jh.com./nanae/kooks/alanconnor.html

Beavis was abducted by space aliens (was Re: procmail - what else can cause "No match&qu

This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message. If you see this text, it means that
your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages.
The Internet standard for MIME PGP messages, RFC 2015, was published in 1996.
To open this message correctly you will need to install E-mail or Usenet
software that supports modern Internet standards.

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-24905-1125355597-0003
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Usenet Beavis writes:

> Hello, Jari. Taking a break from posting lies about Challenge-
> Responses all over the Internet, I see.

Hello, Beavis. You're back from visiting Bigfoot, I see? How's the missus
doing?

> Have you noticed that your disinformation campaign is failing?

Have you noticed that everyone's treating you as if you're walking around
with your fly open? And there's nothing inside?

> Challenge-Responses have been adopted by many of the major ISPs
> and a large number of independent mail service providers, and

Really, Beavis? Who else is just as stupid as Earthlink, to do something
this idiotic?

> new applications using them are being developed with delightful
> regularity.

Like what, Beavis?

> Spammers and trolls hate Challenge-Responses, Jari, because they
> reject anonymous mail.
>
> Why do you?

Why do you have such a hard-on for spamming and mail abuse, Beavis?

> Go ahead and post anything you want on the Internet. Everyone
> with half-a-brain knows that any nutcase or scammer can post
> anything on the Internet.

And you're certainly the living proof of that.

I admire how concisely you manage to prove two different things:

1. That any nutcase or scammer can post anything on the Internet, and

2. Everyone with half a brain knows that, by the virtue of you, yourself,
stating this fact.

Bravo, Beavis! Truer words have never been spoken.



> There are hundreds of sites that
> offer 'proof-positive' that little grey men from alien planets
> are regularly abducting human beings.

But only one "site" (and I use that term loosely) -- yours -- that sings the
praises of abusive spamming in the name of spam filtering.

In other words, Beavis, even alien abduction theories are more popular than
your C/R bullshit.

Thank you for admitting that.

Now, be a good boy, repeat your announcement that you don't read any posts
on this newsgroup, than disappear for another two weeks, to lick your
wounds, before gathering the courage to come back here for another
ass-whooping.



--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-24905-1125355597-0003
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBDE5BNx9p3GYHlUOIRAr+IAJ9T5hegrB0iCMHwGLL0hRh/9h9JuwCf U8KM
6vHTh90jZmuIpfXqbpCtvIg=
=kbnZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-24905-1125355597-0003--

Re: procmail - what else can cause "No match"?

In article ,
Jari Aalto wrote:

> Angus McIntyre writes:
> | :0 B
> | * : VNBL
>
> >> procmail: No match on ": VNBL"
>
> The message is just right. This is not an error indication. It just
> means that it tried the condition and regexp ": VNBL" which
> didn't match.
>
> [ ... snip ... ]
>
> >> procmail: No match on "Vinoble believes"
>
> | [... snip ... ]
> |
> | procmail: Match on "^X-Spam-Status: Yes"
>
> And the it found something to process.
>
> Your recipes are in perfect condition.

Yes ... except that - as far as I can see from the text of the message -
the first two recipes _should_ have matched. They do, in fact, match
correctly on the piece of mail that I'm interested in when I run them in
a test environment. It's only when I run them in the 'live' environment
with actual incoming mail that they seem not to match, and I really
don't know why. I assume I'm missing something, but it's not obvious
what - to me, at least.

Thanks for your response anyway.

Angus

--
"I am here by the will of the people ... and I *will* ["Metrophage",
not leave until I get my raincoat back." Richard Kadrey]

Re: procmail - what else can cause "No match"?

Alan Connor wrote:

> On comp.mail.misc, in , "Jari Aalto" wrote:
>
>
>
> Hello, Jari. Taking a break from posting lies about Challenge-
> Responses all over the Internet, I see.
>
> Have you noticed that your disinformation campaign is failing?
>
> Challenge-Responses have been adopted by many of the major ISPs
> and a large number of independent mail service providers, and
> new applications using them are being developed with delightful
> regularity.
>
> Spammers and trolls hate Challenge-Responses, Jari, because they
> reject anonymous mail.
>
> Why do you?
>
> Go ahead and post anything you want on the Internet. Everyone
> with half-a-brain knows that any nutcase or scammer can post
> anything on the Internet. There are hundreds of sites that
> offer 'proof-positive' that little grey men from alien planets
> are regularly abducting human beings.
>
> But don't bother mailing anyone with a Challenge-Response
> filter unless you use your real return address and read and
> reply to the mail that arrives there.
>
> Because if you don't return the Challenge-Response that your
> mail elicits, your mail will be silently dumped.
>
> That is, if it wasn't dumped for being obvious spam or troll
> mail before it even reached the Challenge-Response stage of
> the filter.
>
> Guess what, Jari? Our mailboxes belong to _us_, not you.
>
> You can't send us mail without our express permission.
>
> Don't like it?
>
> Take a pill.
>
> I don't have a spam problem. I never even know when these
> criminals _try_ to get their garbage in my mailboxes. But people
> who take YOUR advice on spam-fighting never defeat the spammers.
>
> How about that?
>
> I do thank you for your list of _good_ procmail websites, even
> though you have nothing to do with them and are just posting the
> results of google searches here. Procmail makes such a good back
> end for a Challenge-Response mail filter.
>
> AC
>
>

Alan,

Does your response in any way contribute to a resolution of Angus's inquiry?

What is the purpose of your post?

Is this group named alt.what.does.Alan.Think.of.this.poster?

Are you happy with your setup of Challenge-response?
it seems, nobody else cares.

Angus,

Is the procmail that is running on the live system match the
configuration of the procmail in the test environment?

change the mod on the home dir to chmod +t . This will prevent qmail
from delivering. Wait a while, then cat the file into procmail

Consult the log.

Do you have a global recipe script on the live system?

AK

Re: procmail - what else can cause "No match"?

Angus McIntyre writes:

| > | :0 B
| > | * : VNBL
| >
>
| Yes ... except that - as far as I can see from the text of the message -
| the first two recipes _should_ have matched. They do, in fact, match
| correctly on the piece of mail that I'm interested in when I run them in
| a test environment. It's only when I run them in the 'live' environment
| with actual incoming mail that they seem not to match, and I really
| don't know why. I assume I'm missing something, but it's not obvious
| what - to me, at least.

It may be possible that procmail does not see the condition. You could
try this.
:0 B
* ()\/: VNBL

The empty "()" slot is sometimes needed to make the regexps work. That
"\/" isn't strictly necessary. It shows the match in log file.

It could also be that there is whitespace, in which case consult"6.5
Improving Space-Tab syndrome"


Here is the idea. Don't just copy this, but write that TAB in there
with your editor:

WSPC = " " # whitespace = space + tab
SPC = "[$WSPC]" # regexp whitespace
s = $SPC # shorthand notation, If you're accustomed to Perl

:0 B
* ()\/:${s}VNBL

Btw, some procmail versions had bugs so you're in more safer waters if the
recipes are written:

:0
* B ?? ()\/:${s}VNBL

Jari

--
Use Licenses! http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6225
Which Licence? http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=4825
OSI Licences http://www.opensource.org/licenses/