On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:29:00 +0100 Dallman Ross <dman(_at_)nomotek(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 03:47:25PM -0600, Gerald V. Livingston II wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:23:59 -0600 Paul Crittenden
<crittend(_at_)simpson(_dot_)edu> wrote:
* ^X-Spam-Status: Yes
* ? grep -w $LOGNAME /etc/students
Works great.
Paul
You should put the -x back in there:
* ^X-Spam-Status: Yes
* ? grep -wx $LOGNAME /etc/students
/usr/users/truncmail/spam/ac-spam
If you don't then $LOGNAME "robert" matches:
robert robert.jones bob.roberts roberta.q.public
Gerald
He might want the -x instead of -w, but certainly not both.
--
dman
Oops, you are correct. I didn't grep for the meaning of the switch he
already had. With -w, 'robert' will match robert, robert.smith or
jones.robert but NOT roberta or fred.roberts. Still allows for a lot of
possible mis-catches.
Using -x will match ONLY what is on a single line in the text file to be
tested -- in its entirety.
Gerald
____________________________________________________________
procmail mailing list Procmail homepage: http://www.procmail.org/
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail