Outlook rules don't work

ozy

Running gromox 3.7.345.xd02abaf, I noticed that Outlook rules don't work anymore.
Created a simple rule "from user X move to folder Y and stop evaluating other rules".
So far I tried to:

Remove and recreate rule
change user X from the resolved name to the email adresss
Remove "stop evaluating other rules"

Even executing rules on already present mails doesn't work.
This happens with Outlook 2021 (up to date).

Currently, two_step ruleprocessor isn't enabled (I disabled it since rules stopped working after an update to my current gromox version).

Any clues where to search ?

PS: sorry for the French screenshot:

WalterH

I can't reproduce this behavior, but I've had the two-step rule processor enabled for a long time.
Perhaps you need to recreate the roles with the Two-Step Rule Processor enabled?

ozy

@WalterH Thanks for your answer.

I've switched to two rule step processor in /etc/gromox/exmdb_local.cfg:

lda_twostep_ruleproc=1
lda_mrautoproc=yes

Rebooted the mail server and re-created the rule. Same outcome.

I noticed that if I replace "mail received by user@domain.tld" by "sender containx user@domain.tld", the rule works.
Do you by any means use the latter form of the rules ?

ozy

Continued a bit of investigation.
So far I can conclude that:

Creating a rule for an external contact works
Creating a rule for a user on the same server but with different domain works
Creating a rule for a user from the same domain doesn't work (unless I use "sender contains" instead of "contact or group")

The above have been done with two step rule processor.

@WalterH Can you confirm this perhaps ?

[EDIT] For the sake of completeness, I've updated gromox to gromox-3.7.361.x4e34d5d-lp160.44.1.x86_64. Same behavior[/EDIT]

ozy

Updated to gromox-3.8.9.m9df9502.
Still the same issue. Does anyone else experience this ?

WalterH

This bug was not fixed in 3.8.9

ozy

@WalterH Thank you for your answer.
Since I'm a community user, do you know if there's a ticket open for this issue perhaps ?
Shall I open an issue on gromox git ?

ozy

There were recently some ruleproc commits, but nothing that looks like it should resolve that issue.
Updated to 3.8.59.m8f43b18, still got the same issue.

Duese6

Upgraded to gromox 3.8.109 this morning. Since then, no inbox rules are working on any of my servers.

A rollback to 3.8.103 fixes the issue immediately. The rest of the system is fully up to date.

Mister2

Can confitrm same issue here since applying this mornings updates.

grommunio-web - 3.18.146.g81fa9c8f8-lp160.528.1 gromox - 3.8.109.m4da521a-lp160.44.1 gromox-debuginfo - 3.8.109.m4da521a-lp160.44.1 gromox-debugsource - 3.8.109.m4da521a-lp160.44.1 libfreetype6 - 2.14.3-160000.1.1 mapi-header-php - 2.1.35.f3199a1-lp160.14.1

ozy

I'm running with lda_twostep_ruleproc=1, can you guys confirm that this also happens without the new rule processor ?

Duese6

ozy or @WalterH
Could you please tell me in which configuration file this needs to be set? I couldn't find a reference to lda_twostep_ruleproc

WalterH

I use lda_twostep_ruleproc=1, all rules works as expected with 3.8.109.

Duese6

Okay, found it in the comment above:

/etc/gromox/exmdb_local.cfg

Is that the correct place for this setting?

Myexmdb_local.cfg currently only contains x500_org_name, so I just want to make sure I'm not editing the wrong configuration file.

mwilliams

yes, lda_twostep_ruleproc=1 in /etc/gromox/exmdb_local.cfg

Duese6

Adding lda_twostep_ruleproc=1 and lda_mrautoproc=yes fixes the issue on all of my servers.

However, this was quite unexpected from an administrator's perspective. After the update, inbox rules simply stopped working, while both Outlook and grommunio Web continued to show them as enabled and correctly configured.

Since nothing indicated that the rule processor configuration had become relevant, troubleshooting this took quite some time. On an existing installation, one wouldn't normally expect inbox rules to stop working after a routine update due to a missing configuration option.

mwilliams

Duese6

yeah, sorry for the noise, we are discussing internally to make lda_twostep_ruleproc the new default with the next release. stay tuned.

ozy

@mwilliams Initial issue isn't fixed yet, regardless of ruleprocessor configured.
Willing to do all testing required.

mwilliams

ozy

I don't understand, for what reason do you want to keep the non-twostep?