Leif Erlingsson <leif(_at_)lege(_dot_)com> wrote:
You suggested
^Received:.*[ ]for <?
I suggest
^Received: from.*for <?
^^^^
What does that buy us? RFC822 fairly rigidly specifies how
a Received field should/can look. The " for " check should be more
than sufficient.
Btw, what does the [ ] do?
There were a tab and a space in there. Well, strictly speaking, according
to RFC822, it should become:
^Received:.*[ ]for[ ]+<?
Rick Troxel wrote:
This would break recipes I have for differentiating mailing list
arrivals addressed to me as well as a list, e.g.
# ISDN List
:0:
* ^TOisdn(-digest)?@(max\.)?bungi\.com
* ! ^TOrick(_at_)helix\(_dot_)nih\(_dot_)gov
isdn
True. However, this currently is not guaranteed to work as intended
either, because the ^TO expansion already includes things like
"X-Envelope-To:", which defeats the purpose you're checking for (crummy
English, I know, got lost in the sentence somewhere).
You'd be better off reformulating it similar to:
# ISDN List
:0:
* ^TOisdn(-digest)?@(max\.)?bungi\.com
* ! ^(To|Cc):(_dot_)*[^-a-z0-9(_dot_)]rick(_at_)helix\(_dot_)nih\(_dot_)gov
isdn
I think I could live with this breakage. However, the user community's
need for that kind of distinction strikes me as possibly not trivial.
Which kind of distinction? I don't quite understand what you are saying
(trying to say?) here, I think.
--
Sincerely,
srb(_at_)cuci(_dot_)nl
Stephen R. van den Berg (AKA BuGless).
"I hate spinach, and I'm glad that I hate it, because if I wouldn't hate it,
I would have to eat it, and I hate it!"