On 25 Nov, Louis LeBlanc, while quoting me quote him, wrote:
| > [...] I think you'd want something like:
| >
| > :0fhw * ? formail -x From: -x Sender: -x Reply-To: -x Return-Path: \
| > -x To: | egrep -is -f /home/leblanc/.mutt/whitelist | formail -Y -f
| > -A "X-Whitelist: keep it" :0A { WHITE=YES }
|
| Yes, this is what I thought I had.
Somebody's mail software is messing up line feeds, and I don't think
it's mine. ;-) Your quote of this part of my message ignored existing
new lines and added others where they don't belong. The 3 lines above
are actually 6 as sent.
Your original message came looking as if there was no action line, and
although that may be symptomatic of the same line ending problem, I
don't think so. Take a look at your original and my response in the list
archive (near the bottom of the the thread index for this month) to see
what I mean. The list archive has your message as I originally saw it,
looking like no action is included, and showing the formail -A command
as the final part of the condition pipeline. Compare that to what I sent
(in the archive, as opposed to above) to see why I don't think it is
what you had. If I'm wrong then you might want to look at your software
and see if you can get it to stop munging new lines because, if that's
what happened, it sure seems like the meaning was changed. I'm not
trying to be a weenie, just trying to make sure we're comparing apples
to apples.
--
Reply to list please, or append "6" to "procmail" in address if you must.
Spammers' unrelenting address harvesting forces me to this...reluctantly.
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail