Dallman Ross wrote:
Bart Schaefer wrote Thursday, June 21, 2007 3:21 AM:
That [. . .] makes me think that you're using a UW IMAP server
and you're trying to fool it [. . . .]
It's possible, even probable, that the IMAP server has
recognized that a message that it has never seen before has
somehow acquired a keyword, and is therefore deleting it, so
that a malicious sender can't change the way your email is
processed. The server has no way to know that you added the
header yourself with procmail.
I think this is right. Some servers use the Message-ID and
delete subsequent copies of cached values. Personally, I
don't like the approach. (I asked my ISP to disable the
"feature" for my account, and it did so.) I'd suggest
either disabling that behavior on the server or, as a
workaround, rewriting the Message-ID. Formail can do the
latter, as long as you're using it.
I'm not following your logic here. :-)
I have other recipes which successfully add X-Keywords: $Label1 headers
and they have the desired effect. Those recipes are in /etc/procmailrc
*This* recipe operates outside /etc/procmailrc and after an explicit
DROPPRIVS=YES. Once I receive the message at my own server, my ISP is
out of the picture... I just do not see the connection with what my ISP
may do with Message-Id.
If Dovecot IMAP server is truly removing some X-Keyword: headers just
because a message is new, I'll open a bug report against it. I
understand the argument for preventing somebody from sending those
headers to possibly influence message delivery, but if that is truly a
problem, I can start my /etc/procmailrc with a "remove X-Keywords"
That risk is no greater than people sending any other header, such as
Importance:, X-Priority etc.
I also have trouble with this theory because I don't see how Dovecot
could keep track of which messages are new and thus be subject to this
header-extraction. Based on Message-Id? Are you suggesting Dovecot keeps
track of every message-id it's ever seen? I suppose the CLIENT could do
it.... perhaps there's an IMAP trace I could use to see if the
X-Keywords headers are being removed.
I could also "unsubscribe" to that particular folder and check it
"manually" with vim to see if the X-Keywords headers are there, if so,
subscribe to the folder again, and see if the X-Keywords headers are
But, if that's the case, why do some recipes work while this one does not?
In the case that works correctly, the recipe adds only an X-Keywords:
$Label1 when the message already has an X-Priority: (1|2) or Importance:
High header. What I'm thinking now is to add the X-Priority: 1 before
adding the X-Keywords: header. It's a stretch, but an interesting
experiment. Header order is not supposed to matter.
Well, everybody loves a good mystery. :-)
procmail mailing list Procmail homepage: http://www.procmail.org/