At 06:44 2000-11-06 -0700, mike wrote:
OK, you missed the point. This IS the 'testbed'. Once the 'formail' is
OK, you didn't SAY it was a testbed - the glaring error in how the variable
assignments was taking place set off sirens saying if it wasn't a testbed,
finding out how procmail works while making an autoresponder with a live
account could have disasterous results.
In light of that, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that such
autoresponder tests should be conducted as a STANDALONE (that is, not
automatically invoked via .forward, or as an LDA) procmail script.
working, this will not be the ruleset used.
Ah, but in the _meantime_, it is, or would seem to be when any declaration
to the contrary is not made.
FROM_=`formail | expand | sed -e 's/^[ ]*//g' -e 's/[ ]*$//g'`
FROM=`^(From[ ]|(Old-|X-)?(Resent-)?(From|Reply-To|Sender):)(.*\<)?`
return "This account is currently not available".
As Phillip has already posted, and as I inferred, these are not correct
syntax. The former one would presumably spawn formail on _nothing_ and
pass it into expand and sed. The latter, would literally RUN a program
called "From". Look at your log...
And so does:
SENDER=|formail -b -rtzxTo:
(it also returns "This account is currently not available").
Properly, that is:
:0
SENDER=|formail -b -rtzxTo:
(seeing as your FROM assignments were not being invoked through proper
procmail rulesets, I think it is important to note that the ':0' is PART OF
THE RULE).
Failure of this rule (if indeed, it included the :0), is more indicative of
the shell error, whereas the previous two syntaxes could have been any
number of things: the first thing to do when tracking down a problem is
eliminate your own obvious errors, then move forward with the errors which
result from PROPER syntax.
To answer your question. I found these recipes on two of the FAQ links from
the main procmail.org site (one from Timo's and the other from Era's - I
However, you DID NOT find them AS-IS. If so, please cite the section
numbers of the FAQs where they present the recipes without the procmail
flags, because they should be fixed.
me to the 'further readings on procmail' so that I might not annoy others.
Just so we're clear, my comment on annoying others is not in reference to
posting the inquiry on this list, but the possible outcome of a badly
implemented autoresponder.
---
Please DO NOT carbon me on list replies. I'll get my copy from the list.
Sean B. Straw / Professional Software Engineering
Post Box 2395 / San Rafael, CA 94912-2395
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail