I am having what looks like a problem with FROM_DAEMON. One of my recipes (an
auto-reply one) fails because of it.
Here's the recipe - it never gets executed:
:0
* !^FROM_DAEMON
* !^X-Loop: namk(_at_)noyce(_dot_)ncl(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk
* ^X-Diagnostic: Tried to subscribe
{
:0 c
| (formail -r -A"Precedence: junk" \
-A"X-Loop: namk(_at_)noyce(_dot_)ncl(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk" ; \
cat /snail10/local/is/nufc/reject.txt) | $SENDMAIL -t
:0 f
| formail -A"X-Procmailrc-Section 1"
:0
$DEFAULT
}
This is what the log file says (this is apparently the expansion of
FROM_DAEMON):
procmail: No match on ! "(^(Precedence:.*(junk|bulk|list)|To: Multiple
recipient s of |(((Resent-)?(From|Sender)|X-Envelope-From):|>?From
)([^>]*[^((_dot_)%(_at_)a-z0-9])?(
Post(ma?(st(e?r)?|n)|office)|(send)?Mail(er)?|daemon|mmdf|n?uucp|LIST(SERV|proc)
|NETSERV|owner|r(e(quest|sponse)|oot)|b(ounce|bs\.smtp)|echo|mirror|s(erv(ices?|
er)|mtp)|A(dmin(istrator)?|MMGR|utoanswer))(([^).!:a-z0-9][-_a-z0-9]*)?[%@>
][^<)]*(\(.*\).*)?)?$([^>]|$)))" p
And here is the mail message:
From nufc-request(_at_)newcastle(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Mon Nov 13 12:38:25 1995
Received: from cheviot.ncl.ac.uk by slug.ncl.ac.uk; Mon, 13 Nov 95 12:38:24
GMT
Received: from by cheviot.ncl.ac.uk id
<MAA24442(_at_)cheviot(_dot_)ncl(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk>
(8.6.12/ for ncl.ac.uk) with SMTP; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 12:34:15 GMT
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 95 12:38:23 GMT
X-From_: sadko%slug(_at_)newcastle(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Mon Nov 13 12:38:20 1995
Received: from slug.ncl.ac.uk (noyce) by slug.ncl.ac.uk; Mon, 13 Nov 95
12:38:20
GMT
Received: from by cheviot.ncl.ac.uk id
<MAA24422(_at_)cheviot(_dot_)ncl(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk>
(8.6.12/ for ncl.ac.uk) with SMTP; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 12:34:10 GMT
From: sadko%slug(_at_)newcastle(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk
Message-Id: <AA29989(_dot_)9511131232(_at_)slug(_dot_)ncl(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk>
Subject: subscribe
To: nufc-request(_at_)newcastle(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk
Old-Date: Mon, 13 Nov 95 12:32:42 GMT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL4]
X-Diagnostic: Tried to subscribe
X-Envelope-To: nufc-request
Status: OR
Which part of the message fails the (rather complex) regular expression?
Thanks for any help...
Albert