On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 11:47:36 -0600, Justin Gombos
* Google Kreme <gkreme(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> [2004-07-25 09:16]:
But why would we rebuild the From_ timestamp? Doesn't the MTA replace
that timestamp when it receives the message - in which case the
replaced timestamp should match the one constructed from the received
line? I just looked at some of my recent mail, and the timestamp on
the From_ line already matches that of the Received line for my
In my case it was a set of MH mailboxes that I had to reconstruct. I
had 2.5GB of mail with the current date as the FROM_ time stamp. the
same problem would occur with converting Maildirs as well.
Well, you can adapt the script I posted to scan the Date header
then. It will be hard because you can't predict the Date: header
format with certitude. Try doing a grep -e "^Date:" on your mail and
just do a quick visual scan to see how the formats stack up.
Here's a sample from my own mailboxes of some differing formats:
List Replies:Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 11:24:15 +1300
I grep'd older mail, and got results like that above, but with even
more variation. Sometimes the date was like 97-10-02, or 5-13-99.
Yep, My pre 2000 mail showed a lot more variation as well. There is
an RFC, but it was largely ignored until recently. I even have Date
headers with 13/5/98 style format (day month year no padding). That's
partly why I said Date: was unreliable.
I guess it does make sense to have procmail scripts that replicate
other tools, because some environments are limited. Some companies
run procmail in a very restricted shell (smsh or something like that),
and I think formail, procmail, and sendmail are the only commands
available in those environments.
well, my situation is not that dire, but yes, that is a point.
gkreme at gmail or kreme at kreme or syth at mac
:: Don't get saucy with me, Bernaise ::
procmail mailing list Procmail homepage: http://www.procmail.org/