We usually use first match, but in this case last match is used. So 
indeed reversing the order should fix it.

     ChrisP.



On 31/12/2016 2:34 a.m., Jim Lohiser wrote:
> ChrisP,
>
> I tested this and it is still not working.  I created two rules via the web interface.  They would list in friend.rul as follows.  (There are also additional rules that I am not listing.)
>
> bounce2:My reason for rejecting you:FromHIDDEN@e@domain.tld
> accept:FromHIDDEN@n.tld
>
> friend_add.log shows the following.
>
> rule accept:line=3: noreason (From) does contain HIDDEN@n.tld)
>
> Does SurgeMail use short circuit selection for rules (i.e. first match wins) or is it using the last match?
>
> Jim L
> N2Net
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: surgemail-support [mailto:surgemailHIDDEN@t@netwinsite.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2016 7:45 PM
> To: surgemailHIDDEN@etwinsite.com
> Subject: Re: [SurgeMail List] Mailbox Filter Rules and Spam Whitelist
>
> Yes, remove the user from the friends list, and add at the 'end' of the
> filters a rule
>
>       if from HIDDEN@yz.com) accept ...
>
> That will be equivalent to being a friend, but the exceptions will get
> processed.
>       ChrisP.,
>
>
> On 3/11/2016 2:12 a.m., Jim Lohiser wrote:
>> I have discovered an issue with the per-user filter rules.  If the sender address is on the users spam whitelist (friend.lst), then then the message is not subjected to the user's filter rule processing (friend.rul).  In looking at the raw configuration files, it is understandable why this happens since the whitelist and the filter rules are both part of the friends system.
>>
>> Is there any way to exclude a sender from the spam filters for a user BUT still have the senders email processed with the user's filter rules?
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Jim L
>> N2Net
>>
>
>