Help save net neutrality! Learn more.

#6 'From' in mails makes bmf misact


Hi, if you have a 'From' in mails it doesn't act properly
thinking it's the start of a new email.


  • Tom Marshall

    Tom Marshall - 2002-12-10

    Logged In: YES

    It sounds like you are using the wrong mailbox type. If the
    mailbox is in
    mbox format, any line beginning with "From " should be escaped.

    Can you provide more information about your email setup?
    Also, can you run
    bmf with the verbose option and let me know if bmf properly
    detects your
    storage format?

  • Anonymous - 2002-12-10

    Logged In: YES

    I have seen this bug as well, but it is only occuring when
    "From" is not escaped properly. I would expect to get a
    message with "From" at the begining of the line like so:

    >From John Doe at FooWare

    Occasionally I get messages that are unescaped so the ">" is
    not present. I run bmf in passthrough mode (-p) so at that
    point bmf will place a X-Spam-Status header into the

    From John Doe at FooWare
    X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.000000 required=0.900000

    This, to me is semi-expected because some mailer along the
    way might not be escaping the 'From' correctly. I know some
    MUAs deal with this correctly and go ahead and quote the
    'From,' but that might mean more overhead. I've only taken
    a glance at the lex.c code so I don't have anything further
    to contribute code wise. I have a raw, real-world message
    that triggers this case if anyone wants it.

  • Andrew McMillan

    Andrew McMillan - 2003-01-14

    Logged In: YES

    I think the key point here is that this happens in
    _passthrough_ mode. When bmf is in passthrough mode I don't
    think it should be looking to auto-split the mail at all.

    In my case, bmf -p runs via my .procmailrc on, and then there are several further
    hops to actually get the e-mail to me. You can see the
    incorrect action in the below e-mail from's

    Envelope-to: <freshmail@localhost>
    Return-path: <>
    Received: from (ident=unknown) by with esmtp
    (masqmail 0.2.16) id 18YEwo-6GK-00 for
    <freshmail@localhost>; Tue, 14 Jan
    2003 13:28:54 +1300
    Received: from by localhost with IMAP
    (fetchmail-6.2.0) for freshmail@localhost
    (single-drop); Tue, 14 Jan 2003
    13:28:54 +1300 (NZDT)
    Received: from (
    []) by (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian -4)
    with SMTP id
    h0E0SRhT003598 for
    <>; Tue, 14 Jan 2003
    13:28:28 +1300
    Received: (qmail 28826 invoked by uid 5302); 14 Jan 2003
    00:32:20 -0000
    Received: (qmail 28812 invoked by uid 5000); 14 Jan 2003
    00:32:20 -0000
    Date: 14 Jan 2003 00:32:19 -0000
    Message-ID: <>
    Subject: [Issue 2593] - Bug in importing cross-references
    from Word
    X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.000000 required=0.900000
    X-UIDL: 6*;!!*AA!!B_!#!Kk8"!
    X-Evolution-Source: pop://nsmail@localhost
    Mime-Version: 1.0

    ------- Additional Comments From
    2003-01-13 16:32 PST -------
    >From one of these comments it appears that a reference to the
    paragraph with outline numbering should work. AFAICS it
    does not.
    X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.000000 required=0.900000

    I can create a bookmark in (say) paragraph and then
    referencce that somewhere else. When I create the reference
    I can
    choose the format "Page" which does what I expect, but if I
    "Chapter" format I just get "4" without the sublevels. I
    can't see
    how to get the full "" to appear.

    Ideally I would like to be able to select "Outline" for
    "Type" of
    cross-reference in the dialog and then the outline
    paragraphs should be listed in "Selection" for me to choose
    the one to refer too.

    Sub-optimally, but usably, if I could just choose "Paragraph
    Number" under "Format" for the reference and have the
    paragraph number for that paragraph (i.e. formatted as
    defined in the outline numbering), appear as my reference.

    This should be OS:All too - I see the same problem under
    Windows and Linux.

  • Nobody/Anonymous

    Logged In: NO

    I run bmf in .procmailrc as

    : 0 fw
    | bmf -p

    On some emails the initial From is converted to "rom". This
    leads mutt not tot see the email as a distinct email. This
    doesn't happen alot, but is beginning to get irritating.


  • Nobody/Anonymous

    Logged In: NO

    Here's an email I just got that had the 'from' error. It sees From at the
    beginning of the line, then it inserts the 'spam-status' at the first blank line.
    Hello all,

    The administration here is considering the purchase of any future lab
    computers and laptops without floppy drives, insisting that recordable CDs,
    USB key drives, and web storage will be easily adopted by our students.

    From my own experience of watching students, USB drives are gaining
    popularity, but the floppy disk is still the storage medium of choice,
    probably because it's cheap and easy to use.
    X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.000000 required=0.900000

    Have any institutions implemented "floppyless" computer labs and/or
    classrooms? How do the students react to them? What kinds of operational
    and maintenance problems were created when computers were made

    Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

  • Nobody/Anonymous

    Logged In: NO

    There is a flag you can add to which lets it
    escape the
    unescaped "From "s in a mail body.
    According to
    you just have to add an E to the mailer flags.

    //Thorsten Glaser, MirOS developer and bmf user

  • Nobody/Anonymous

    Logged In: NO

    Geez Thorsten. What do you do if a person isn't using
    sendmail or it's misconfigured and the recipient still gets
    an unescaped 'From', hmmm? That's not really a helpful

  • Stephan Knuth

    Stephan Knuth - 2004-12-12

    Logged In: YES


    the whole issue gets pretty serious if you have two "from" -
    entries whithin one e-mail-header. Them the header seems to
    be one e-mail for bmf and the body another. This completely
    messes up the filter database and instead of learning and
    getting better and better over time, bmf does it job worse
    every batch of e-mails it gets to process.
    Training bmf on partly misclassified e-mails doesn't help,
    of course.

    You have a spammy header and a hammy body - what should be
    considerd when applaying filter on X-Spam-... entries?

    This in mind, bmf is almost near to useless. The deprecated
    "-m" option might help, if still working, because using
    maildirs it should be clear that every pile of bytes passed
    on to bmf is exactly one e-mail, not two or more.


Log in to post a comment.