"Michael C. Tiernan" <mtiernan(_at_)bbn(_dot_)com> writes:
Philip Guenther said:
Is there anything wrong with just matching it in the body using the
"B ??" leader on the condition?
Well, sorta kinda, I have the feeling that this is going to get
ugly so I think I MAY use a perl script to off load the
responsibilities. I can also run perl off of a different
machine to decrease the load on the mail host.
"run perl off of a different machine", what via rsh? Huuuuurl!
Are you _trying_ to make your life more painful? No, don't answer
that...
However, I have gone and looked up this line you sent:
* B ?? ^Applies-to: *some_keyword
and I'll be damned if I can find it "explained" properly.
I'm using 3.11 and I'd like to read more about this.
Well, my reference was sorta misleading. The procmail manpage actually
says:
There are some special conditions you can use that are not
straight regular expressions. To select them, the condition
must start with:
...
variablename ??
Match the remainder of this condition against the value
of this environment variable (which cannot be a pseudo
variable). A special case is if variablename is equal
to `B', `H', `HB' or `BH'; this merely overrides the
default header/body search area defined by the initial
flags on this recipe.
Thus if a condition starts with "B ??" then the rest of the condition
is treated as if the 'B' recipe flag were in effect, and procmail will
match against the body of the message instead of the header.
This is the kind of processing I suspect that I'll have to do.
I think that this is going to require more processing than I
want to put on my primary system.
If you think so, though you may be surprised at how much you can do just
from procmail.
Philip Guenther