From: "David W. Tamkin" <dattier(_at_)ripco(_dot_)com>
A vacation response should be sent only in reaction to mail that is
To: the vacationer. If the address of the vacationer does not appear,
or it is only in Cc:, Apparently-To:, Resent-anything:, a visible
Bcc:, nor (in the absence of To:) Received:...for or Delivered-To:,
those don't count.
Okay. Thanks. Right, of course. I left my thinking cap back with
the wine I had for dinner, I suppose.
T> * !^List-
T> * !^Mailing-List:
T> * !^X-.*-List:
T> * !^X-Listprocessor-Version:
R> That's a lot of "List" stuff that maybe could just be handled in one
R> line? Certainly the last makes the third redundant, anyway.
No, the fourth does not include the third, nor vice versa. The second and
the third could be combined, though:
R> So how about something like:
R> * ! List
R> and be done with it?
Way too coarse. What if I send you a personal message, not knowing
you had just left on vacation, and the subject is "Are you as sick of
the procmail list as I am?" or "I'm going to meet Calista Flockhart"?
What if you were getting personal mail from somene named Alistair?
Well, in that vein, couldn't X-.*-List also not match this?
X-Reminder: D-Man's Wish-List
Wouldn't we at least want to remove spaces?
Let me try again:
* ! ^(X?|Mailing)-?[a-z-]*List[a-z:-]+
\ .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. /
'-' '-' '-' '-' '-' '-' '-' '-'