Never mind. Found my mistake. For testing, I was loading an existing email
into JavaMail for sending and adding a recipient through JavaMail. Since I
did not remove the TO: header in the existing mail I was ending up with two
recipients (two Mails in James) and thats why the GHOST did not seem to be
working. Mail for the second recipient was not being caught by my Matcher
and so it made its was to RemoteDelivery!!!

Stupid! Sorry for the wasted bandwidth. Not sure where my head is at the mo.

Sergei



----- Original Message -----
From: "Serge Sozonoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "James Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 6:16 PM
Subject: Mail State GHOST not working


> Hi Guys,
>
> Could something have broke in HEAD to cause the GHOST state of a mail to
be
> ignored?
>
> I am doing some testing here with my Mailet and even though I change the
> Mail state to GHOST, it still moves on.
>
> As you can see from the log clipping below, the mail comes in with state =
> root. At the end of my Mailet I set the state to GHOST but then it still
> makes it through to RemoteDelivery, which is the correct behavior had the
> state not been GHOST!
>
> 28/01/03 17:59:26 INFO  James.Mailet: BounceHandler: Original mail state =
> root
> .....
> 28/01/03 17:59:26 INFO  James.Mailet: BounceHandler: New mail state =
ghost
> 28/01/03 17:59:30 INFO  James.Mailet: RemoteDelivery: Attempting delivery
of
> Mail1043773166111-1-!12884-to-zzz.com to host zzz.zzz.com. to addresses
> [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> 28/01/03 17:59:32 INFO  James.Mailet: RemoteDelivery: Mail
> (Mail1043773166111-1-!12884-to-zzz.com) sent successfully to zzz.zzz.com.
>
> The Mailet/Matcher are defined as the first block in the root processor.
>
> Am I totally missing something here?
>
> Thanks,
> Sergei
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Reply via email to