Quote:
Originally Posted by JeremyNicoll
Aha! Disabled rules! I forgot that I had any... Section 4a doesn't set any "hasmailbox" variables here though; it's setting the "skipinbox" variable - which presumably means that later we intend to prevent that mail being routed to the inbox?
|
Oops sorry for the mistake. I meant to say "section 4a (
Calculate rule action) tests the rule conditions and a match sets the corresponding Lx_... and
skipinbox variables". It was getting late when I typed that. I just went back and added a correction to my post. Thanks for pointing that out.
Quote:
|
So at this point such mails are being routed to a named mailbox (by the fileinto). The ":copy" means not that there's a copy being made elsewhere, but that - for the moment - the "implicit keep" (which would normally route every mail to the INBOX) is still going to happen. And "hasmailbox" presumably indicates that the mail has successfully been put somewhere else?
|
Yeah, I was trying to keep the explanation simple and avoided introducing the concept of "keep". But you are correct. The fileinto :copy just doesn't clear the "keep" so that the message can still potentially default to filing into the INBOX. But...
Quote:
|
It's not precisely discarding a copy, it's turning off the "implicit keep"...
|
Which is what that block of code does following that "
Then archive or clear implicit keep if skipping inbox" comment, i.e., that discard.
Quote:
|
I just looked at my Sieve code; all of my mailboxids are the '5 dash separated hex' values type too.
|
Which brings us back to my original concern. Where did that strange looking mailboxid come from?
I'd still like to see the section 4a code (appropriately censored if necessary).