procmail
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: A file server in procmail: advices required

1996-11-17 11:28:29
A (At) 22:06 11/11/96, Philip Guenther écrivait (wrote):

You're properly paranoid and handle all the error cases in a reasonable

Yes, it was one of the main design decisions (to be paranoid). Thanks for
noticing it.

fashion.  I have just one comment on usage.  You write things similar to:
[...]
It's more efficient to say:

       :0
       * ^Subject: INDEX .*\.\.
       | formail -i"X-Diagnostic: ERROR: SECURITY PROBLEM (no reply sent)" \
               | $SENDMAIL -oi $MAINTAINER

But it produces very different messages. The above rules sends a new
message, with new (and mostly empty) headers, which includes the old one.
Here is an example of your recipe's result send in the maintainer's
mailbox:

-----------

Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 19:08:58 +0100
From: listserv(_at_)mydomain(_dot_)org

From bin  Sun Nov 17 19:08:59 1996
Return-Path: <Stephane.Bortzmeyer>
Received: from (stephane(_at_)localhost)
          by foobar.mydomain.org (8.7.3/jtpda-5.1.2-b) id TAA01352
          ; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 19:08:58 +0100
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 19:08:58 +0100
Message-Id: <199611171808(_dot_)TAA01352(_at_)foobar(_dot_)mydomain(_dot_)org>
To: fileserver(_at_)mydomain(_dot_)org
From: bortzmeyer(_at_)mydomain(_dot_)org
Subject: send  toto
Precedence: junk
X-Diagnostic: ERROR: Not safe to reply (No reply sent)

----------

while I would like to have:

----------

Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 19:23:17 +0100
To: fileserver(_at_)mydomain(_dot_)org
From: bortzmeyer(_at_)mydomain(_dot_)org
Subject: send  toto
Precedence: junk
X-Diagnostic: ERROR: Not safe to reply (No reply sent)

----------



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>