procmail
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: procmail-d Digest UNSUBSCRIBE

1997-05-19 19:43:00
procmail-d-request(_at_)Informatik(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE wrote:

Subject:

procmail-d Digest                               Volume 97 : Issue 122

Today's Topics:
  Re: What is the spamming software do  [ Randy Katz 
<randyk(_at_)ccsales(_dot_)com> ]
  Re: What is the spamming software do  [ Jason R Mastaler 
<jason(_at_)mastaler(_dot_)co ]
  How could i get some indication of a  [ Georgios Katsikogiannis 
<george(_at_)net ]
  Re: procmail-d Digest V97 #121        [ 
<frank(_at_)english(_dot_)microserve(_dot_)com> ]
  bypassing LINEBUF (Re: Hacking stdin  [ srb(_at_)cuci(_dot_)nl (Stephen R. 
van den Ber ]
  Re: How could i get some indication   [ era eriksson 
<era(_at_)iki(_dot_)fi> ]
  Re: Procmail choking on attachm       [ srb(_at_)cuci(_dot_)nl (Stephen R. 
van den Ber ]
  Re: How could i get some indication   [ Andrew Y Ng 
<ayn(_at_)Ngbert(_dot_)org> ]
  Re: scanning the body of a message    [ srb(_at_)cuci(_dot_)nl (Stephen R. 
van den Ber ]
  Re: formail's Old-* headers           [ srb(_at_)cuci(_dot_)nl (Stephen R. 
van den Ber ]
  Re: Procmail as a LMDA on SOLARIS     [ Roderick Schertler 
<roderick(_at_)argon(_dot_) ]
  Re: sendmail 8.8.5 versus procmail o  [ srb(_at_)cuci(_dot_)nl (Stephen R. 
van den Ber ]
  Re: Preventing execution of arbitrar  [ srb(_at_)cuci(_dot_)nl (Stephen R. 
van den Ber ]
  Re: How could i get some indication   [ "Aaron D. Turner" 
<aturner(_at_)best(_dot_)com ]
  Re: Preventing execution of arbitrar  [ srb(_at_)cuci(_dot_)nl (Stephen R. 
van den Ber ]
  Procmail, formail and AutoReply       [ "Timothy Ayodele" 
<toa(_at_)ttns(_dot_)net> ]
  Re: Software to spy people on the ne  [ srb(_at_)cuci(_dot_)nl (Stephen R. 
van den Ber ]
  Help with a procmail problem.         [ Jeff Mercer 
<riffer(_at_)afn(_dot_)org> ]
  Re: Multiple From Addresses           [ srb(_at_)cuci(_dot_)nl (Stephen R. 
van den Ber ]
  3.10 vs 3.11:                         [ Luke Davis 
<ldavis(_at_)voicenet(_dot_)com> ]
  Re: Procmail, formail and AutoReply   [ Luke Davis 
<ldavis(_at_)voicenet(_dot_)com> ]
  Re: Help with a procmail problem.     [ Luke Davis 
<ldavis(_at_)voicenet(_dot_)com> ]
  Re: How could i get some indication   [ Rob Duncan 
<rob(_dot_)duncan(_at_)Eng(_dot_)Sun(_dot_)COM> ]

    ---------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: What is the spamming software doing?
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 05:50:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: Randy Katz <randyk(_at_)ccsales(_dot_)com>
To: Eric Hilding <eric(_at_)hilding(_dot_)com>
CC: robert(_at_)elastica(_dot_)com, 
procmail(_at_)Informatik(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE

Why should the Government be responsible? The same issue with insurance
on some levels. If the public took it to their own responsibility there
would be less relying on Insurance Agencies and Government to do the
public's job...same thing with raising children..can'
t expect the system to *educate* them and develop their character.

...And especially the same with *anything* you find offensive on the
'net...use that technology back at them...fry them...but don't get the
Government involved (they've got their own problems and they rely solely
on the private sector to figure things like this out for them anyway).

So comeone guys...back to the hacking (drawing) board, eh?

Katz

 On
Sun, 18 May 1997, Eric Hilding wrote:


On Mon, 19 May 1997, Robert Nicholson wrote:
Can somebody explain how these SPAMMERS can go on hiding who they are and
justify this crap? Doesn't this constitute some kind of offence?

Unless I've missed something, isn't it about time we get on our Senators
and Congressmen to pass some *real* legislation to deal with this issue?
Especially, domain name forgeries?

Eric


RAK

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Randy A. Katz
Computer Consultation & Sales
505 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 472                        Beverly Hills, CA  
90212
(213) 307-9581                                         http://www.ccsales.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ---------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: What is the spamming software doing?
Date: 19 May 1997 09:07:57 -0400
From: Jason R Mastaler <jason(_at_)mastaler(_dot_)com>
To: robert(_at_)elastica(_dot_)com
CC: procmail(_at_)Informatik(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE

Robert Nicholson <steffi2(_at_)dgs(_dot_)dgsys(_dot_)com> writes:

It seems that the spammer software doesn't even hit my MX record. From
what I can see it looks like the program telnets directly to my port 25.

Looks like it's time to read those sendmail extensions that cut out SPAM.

Has Eric made them sendmail v8 features yet?

Not yet.  The experimental procedures documented at
http://www.sendmail.org/antispam.html are intended to be
features in sendmail 8.9.

--
Jason R. Mastaler                                 
jason(_at_)mastaler(_dot_)com

    ---------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: How could i get some indication of a new message ?
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 15:54:30 +0100 (BST)
From: Georgios Katsikogiannis <george(_at_)net-cs(_dot_)ucd(_dot_)ie>
To: procmail(_at_)Informatik(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE

Hi, I have come up with the following problem.
Having redirected your message to a folder, how could you get an
indication that a new mail has arrived and o which folder has it been
stored, other than having to look at the log file? If you don't store them
in  the /var/spool/mail/xxxx, then can't you get a notification about any
incoming messages ? Is there any way to see in which folder is a new
message stored ?

Thanx.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: procmail-d Digest V97 #121
Date: Mon, 19 May 97 11:30:26 -0400
From: <frank(_at_)english(_dot_)microserve(_dot_)com>
To: <procmail(_at_)Informatik(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE>

How do I get off this list?

I can't seem to unsubscribe!

Help?

Frank English
frank(_at_)english(_dot_)microserve(_dot_)com

From "Life's Little Instruction Book: 511 Suggestions, Observations,
and Reminders on How to Live a Happy and Rewarding Life"
by H. Jackson Brown, Jr. (Rutledge Hill Press: Nashville, TN, 1991)
Instruction # 393. Learn how to operate a Macintosh computer.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: bypassing LINEBUF (Re: Hacking stdin?)
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 18:27:31 +0200
From: srb(_at_)cuci(_dot_)nl (Stephen R. van den Berg)
To: procmail(_at_)Informatik(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE

era eriksson <reriksso(_at_)cc(_dot_)helsinki(_dot_)fi> wrote:
Robert Nicholson <steffi2(_at_)dgs(_dot_)dgsys(_dot_)com> wrote:
Do later procmail's cache the current messages headers and or body for
use anywhere in a recipe?

No, you have to do it yourself. It's easy to do, though.

   HEADER=`sed '/^$/,$d'`
   BODY=`sed '1,/^$/d'`

Nothing inherently "wrong", but yes, it will break if LINEBUF is
exceeded. You could try to set it to something reasonably big, and/or

If it's a simply matter of getting the appropriate environment variables
filled, you can get it done without increasing LINEBUF.  The maximum
size of the environment is still a limiting factor though (i.e. as soon
as procmail execs another program the kernel might complain and refuse
to start the program in question); typical kernels today limit this at
1MB.

Try:

        :0 h
 HEADER=| cat

        :0 b
   BODY=| cat

As soon as procmail has to expand these itself, LINEBUF applies again, though.
If a shell expands it, LINEBUF is irrelevant, of course.

Another (unusual) trick to avoid tempfiles would be (but more memory
friendly than the techniques above):

mknod pipe p

And, then, in your .procmailrc:

        :0
        * condition
        {
                LOCKFILE=pipe.lock

                :0 c
                {
                        :0
                        pipe
                }

                :0
                | ( formail -r ; cat pipe ) | $SENDMAIL -t -oi

                LOCKFILE
        }

--
Sincerely,                                                          
srb(_at_)cuci(_dot_)nl
           Stephen R. van den Berg (AKA BuGless).

"Father's Day: Nine months before Mother's Day."

    ---------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: How could i get some indication of a new message ?
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 19:26:20 +0300 (EET DST)
From: era eriksson <era(_at_)iki(_dot_)fi>
To: george(_at_)net-cs(_dot_)ucd(_dot_)ie
CC: procmail(_at_)Informatik(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE

On Mon, 19 May 1997 15:54:30 +0100 (BST),
Georgios Katsikogiannis <george(_at_)net-cs(_dot_)ucd(_dot_)ie> wrote:
 > in  the /var/spool/mail/xxxx, then can't you get a notification about any
 > incoming messages ? Is there any way to see in which folder is a new
 > message stored ?

If your comsat understands Procmail's notifications, go with that.

Some shells have their own built-in biff-like checking.

There are several third-party biffs which can monitor many mailboxes
at the same time.

You can write a shell script to periodically check files for new mail.

I use bash and a shell script I run when I log in and occasionally
during the day. (I'd like to have that kludged into Emacs's
display-time instead; I've been working on that at times but never
gotten around to finishing it.) When I'm at an X terminal, I use
xbuffy. Either way, I usually keep open a window (or screen, as it may
be -- I find screen(1) to be indispensable for a lot of reasons, even
under X --) with tail -0f ~/Mail/procmail.log

Hope this helps,

/* era */

--
Defin-i-t-e-ly. Sep-a-r-a-te. Gram-m-a-r.  <http://www.iki.fi/~era/>
 * Enjoy receiving spam? Register at <http://www.iki.fi/~era/spam.html>

    ---------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Procmail choking on attachm
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 18:39:42 +0200
From: srb(_at_)cuci(_dot_)nl (Stephen R. van den Berg)
To: procmail(_at_)Informatik(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE

Philip Guenther <guenther(_at_)gac(_dot_)edu> wrote:
"David B Little" <David_B_Little(_at_)cpqm(_dot_)mail(_dot_)saic(_dot_)com> 
writes:
Since these large files are typically files with attachments I was curious 
if
there was a way to tell procmail within the rc file to only grep the first 
30
lines or so of each message?  If so, can this be set as a universal or does 
it
need to be in each filter string?  I can't use the header only grep as I 
need
to filter within the mail body to prevent over filtering.

No, there isn't.

Well, actually, something like:

        :0 b
        * ^^\
            (((.*$)?.*$)?.*$)\
            .*someregexp
        anothermailbox

Will cause (a recent version of) procmail to look in only the first four lines
of a message.  Earlier versions of procmail would still scan the whole
body.

Nest the expression to taste of course (it becomes a bit tedious to type
for 30 lines).
--
Sincerely,                                                          
srb(_at_)cuci(_dot_)nl
           Stephen R. van den Berg (AKA BuGless).

"Father's Day: Nine months before Mother's Day."

    ---------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: How could i get some indication of a new message ?
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 11:46:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Andrew Y Ng <ayn(_at_)Ngbert(_dot_)org>
To: Georgios Katsikogiannis <george(_at_)net-cs(_dot_)ucd(_dot_)ie>
CC: procmail(_at_)Informatik(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE

write a simple perl script... run it as a background
process when u'r logged in, and zap it while u logout...

/ayn

On Mon, 19 May 1997, Georgios Katsikogiannis wrote:

Hi, I have come up with the following problem.
Having redirected your message to a folder, how could you get an
indication that a new mail has arrived and o which folder has it been
stored, other than having to look at the log file? If you don't store them
in  the /var/spool/mail/xxxx, then can't you get a notification about any
incoming messages ? Is there any way to see in which folder is a new
message stored ?

--
Andrew Y Ng <ayn(_at_)CMU(_dot_)EDU> | Carnegie Mellon University
http://andrew.Ngbert.org  | ECE major  // 4-yr BS/MS
campus ph: 412/862-2836   | voice mail: 412/268-6700 Box 30027
                          | talk: finger 
ayn(_at_)andrew(_dot_)Ngbert(_dot_)org
   * NGBERT.ORG! *        |       for online status
http://www.Ngbert.org     | finger ayn(_at_)CMU(_dot_)EDU for more info...
--------------------------X-------------------------------------
   NetBSD   NeXT   FreeBSD    Linux  Be   Solaris   !windoze

Said the attractive, cigar-smoking housewife to her girl-friend: "I got
started one night when George came home and found one burning in the ashtray."

    ---------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: scanning the body of a message
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 18:53:26 +0200
From: srb(_at_)cuci(_dot_)nl (Stephen R. van den Berg)
To: procmail(_at_)Informatik(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE

Michael Fuhr <mfuhr(_at_)dimensional(_dot_)com> wrote:
Is there an option other than scanning the body like this:

:0b
* http://www\.(siteone|sitetwo|sitethree)

My list of sex domains 70+ long, making the above method hard to read.  :(

If your list gets too long, use the weighted scoring technique
documented in procmailsc(5).  Here's an example:

Yes, but that will take (much) more CPU time.
As for solutions using external (f)greps, those are likely to be more
timeconsuming as well.

Any time such a list becomes unwieldy (sp?) to handle, why not have a small
sh or awk or sed or perl script construct the regexp for you?

In your .procmailrc:

INCLUDERC=sexspamurlrc

In a file called sexspamdomains:

siteone
sitetwo
sitethree

In a file called gensexspamurlrc:

#!/bin/sh

exec <sexspamdomains >sexspamurlrc.tmp

echo ':0'

read domain

regexp="* http://www\\.($domain"

while read domain
do
   regexp="$regexp|$domain"
done

echo "$regexp)\\.com"
echo "/dev/null"

exec 1>&-

mv sexspamurlrc.tmp sexspamurlrc

exit 0

Now you can conveniently edit sexspamdomains in a readable fashion.  Just
make sure you run gensexspamurlrc after making changes.
There is *no* runtime penalty for procmail, so you get convenience and speed.

BTW, this example applies to *many* examples in the past where people where
trying to avoid coding "complex" expressions directly in procmail and
using external programs instead.  By using the external program in this
fashion, it is run *only* when the list changes, and not every time a mail
arrives.
--
Sincerely,                                                          
srb(_at_)cuci(_dot_)nl
           Stephen R. van den Berg (AKA BuGless).

"Father's Day: Nine months before Mother's Day."

    ---------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: formail's Old-* headers
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 19:01:20 +0200
From: srb(_at_)cuci(_dot_)nl (Stephen R. van den Berg)
To: procmail(_at_)Informatik(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE

"J. Daniel Smith" <DanS(_at_)bristol(_dot_)com> wrote:
To be strictly compliant, shouldn't formail rename headers to
X-Old-Whatever: instead of Old-Whatever: when using the
"-i Whatever: foo" option?

No.  As long as headernames are not claimed by any RFCs, a program can
use any header it wants.

The idea (back then) was that:
- We want to add as little characters as possible, since it would only add
  extra clutter.  "Old-" was the shortest meaningful prefix I could come
  up with.
- If a certain header is in use long enough, future RFCs are likely to
  avoid conflicting with it.  I'd say, by now, this has become a reality
  (formail is in widespread use nowadays).

Amersfoort, The Netherlands               {info,jobs}(_at_)bristol(_dot_)com

Did you move?
--
Sincerely,                                                          
srb(_at_)cuci(_dot_)nl
           Stephen R. van den Berg (AKA BuGless).

"Father's Day: Nine months before Mother's Day."

    ---------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Procmail as a LMDA on SOLARIS
Date: 19 May 1997 13:19:48 -0400
From: Roderick Schertler <roderick(_at_)argon(_dot_)org>
To: Philip Guenther <guenther(_at_)gac(_dot_)edu>
CC: Burnt Norton <bnorton(_at_)mastaler(_dot_)com>, 
procmail(_at_)Informatik(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE

On Thu, 15 May 1997 18:11:15 -0500, Philip Guenther 
<guenther(_at_)gac(_dot_)edu> said:

procmail can *always* do dot-locking, so don't worry about or try to
disable it.

Beware, though, that if you've got a mode 775 group mail mail spool (which
I presume Solaris, being a SVR4, does) dot locking won't work with pre7 or
pre6 and maybe other (I don't know when the bug was introduced) without a
patch.  Here's the one from Stephen.

Index: locking.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /var/lib/cvs/procmail/src/locking.c,v
retrieving revision 1.47
diff -u -r1.47 locking.c
--- locking.c   1997/04/03 01:58:44     1.47
+++ locking.c   1997/04/28 10:42:43
@@ -29,14 +29,14 @@
      return;
   if(!strcmp(name,defdeflock))        /* is it the system mailbox lockfile? 
*/
    { locktype=doCHECK|doLOCK;
+     if(sgid!=gid&&setegid(sgid))      /* try and get some extra permissions 
*/
 #ifndef fdlock
-     if(!accspooldir)
-      { yell("Bypassed locking",name);
-       return;
-      }
-     else
+        if(!accspooldir)
+         { yell("Bypassed locking",name);
+          return;
+         }
 #endif
-       setegid(sgid);                 /* try and get some extra permissions 
*/
+        ;
    }
   name=tstrdup(name); /* allocate now, so we won't hang on memory *and* lock 
*/
   for(lcking|=lck_LOCKFILE;;)

--
Roderick Schertler
roderick(_at_)argon(_dot_)org

    ---------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: sendmail 8.8.5 versus procmail on AIX
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 19:47:19 +0200
From: srb(_at_)cuci(_dot_)nl (Stephen R. van den Berg)
To: Michael Traxler 
<Michael(_dot_)Traxler(_at_)physik(_dot_)uni-giessen(_dot_)de>,
     procmail(_at_)Informatik(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE

Michael Traxler 
<Michael(_dot_)Traxler(_at_)physik(_dot_)uni-giessen(_dot_)de> wrote:
There seems to be a problem with sendmail V8.8.5 and procmail (v3.10 and
v3.11) on AIX (V3.2).
Whenever a user has the line : "|/home/user/procmail" in his/her
.forward file the first line of the Mail, the Unix From line, gets

"From user(_at_)uni-giessen(_dot_)de Mon May 12 08:45:13 1997"
but the local mailer writes the following
"From  hermes.hrz.uni-giessen.de [134.176.2.15] Mon May 12 08:45:13
1997"

Additionally, the "Return-Path:" vanishes.
With the original sendmail from IBM (Version AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64)
everything works fine.
Strange thing about it: Everything works fine with the elm-"filter"
program. So, sendmail seems to hate procmail, but why?

I suspect the problem is the local mailer.

No.  The mailer to check would be the Mprog mailer.  Since .forward
files go to the prog mailer.
--
Sincerely,                                                          
srb(_at_)cuci(_dot_)nl
           Stephen R. van den Berg (AKA BuGless).

"Father's Day: Nine months before Mother's Day."

    ---------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Preventing execution of arbitrary programs
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 19:56:27 +0200
From: srb(_at_)cuci(_dot_)nl (Stephen R. van den Berg)
To: Eric Daniel <edaniel(_at_)EESUN2(_dot_)tamu(_dot_)edu>, 
procmail(_at_)Informatik(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE

Eric Daniel <edaniel(_at_)EESUN2(_dot_)tamu(_dot_)edu> wrote:
For security purposes, I would like to prevent users from executing arbitrary
commands on my mail hub by using smrsh. I disabled the logins on that
machine, and a .forward with a pipe woule be a way to turn around that
restriction.

At the same time, it would be nice to allow procmail, but then, of course,
the pipe action kind of defeats the purpose of smrsh.

In the most recent procmail (v3.11pre7) there is a hithereto undocumented
macro which disables execution of any and all programs.  Simply include

        #define RESTRICT_EXEC

in the config.h file (before compiling).

The reason why this isn't documented yet is because it needs a bit of more
work to make it more flexible.  Like allowing program execution for
user ids below 100 and/or allowing program execution from the site-wide
/etc/procmailrc file.
--
Sincerely,                                                          
srb(_at_)cuci(_dot_)nl
           Stephen R. van den Berg (AKA BuGless).

"Father's Day: Nine months before Mother's Day."

    ---------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: How could i get some indication of a new message ?
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 10:55:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Aaron D. Turner" <aturner(_at_)best(_dot_)com>
To: Georgios Katsikogiannis <george(_at_)net-cs(_dot_)ucd(_dot_)ie>
CC: procmail(_at_)Informatik(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE

I guess there's two ways that I can think of:

1) Run something like Mailstat or my ProcLog manually (both scan your log
file and report on new email in folders).

2) Run a cron job every x minutes that scans your log and reports.

Personally I like #1, because if you're sorting email the general idea is
that you're getting enough email (ie a lot) to warrent sorting it.  Having
a cron job report on all that email every 8 minutes or so would get really
annoying to me.

ProcLog is available at http://www.pobox.com/~aturner/proclog

Aaron Turner, CNE      | Finger me for my PGP key   | Unix, Perl & Bash Hacker
aturner(_at_)pobox(_dot_)com      | Either which way,          | Comp. Eng. 
Major @ SJSU
www.pobox.com/~aturner | one half dozen or another. | Mustang lover, M$ hater

On Mon, 19 May 1997, Georgios Katsikogiannis wrote:


Hi, I have come up with the following problem.
Having redirected your message to a folder, how could you get an
indication that a new mail has arrived and o which folder has it been
stored, other than having to look at the log file? If you don't store them
in  the /var/spool/mail/xxxx, then can't you get a notification about any
incoming messages ? Is there any way to see in which folder is a new
message stored ?


Thanx.


    ---------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Preventing execution of arbitrary programs
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 20:00:26 +0200
From: srb(_at_)cuci(_dot_)nl (Stephen R. van den Berg)
To: Eric Daniel <edaniel(_at_)EESUN2(_dot_)tamu(_dot_)edu>, 
procmail(_at_)Informatik(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE

Eric Daniel <edaniel(_at_)EESUN2(_dot_)tamu(_dot_)edu> wrote:
So my questions are:
1) Assuming the pipe action is disabled, can I be sure that procmail does 
not
provide any other way of executing commands?

The RESTRICT_EXEC method is guaranteed to be 100% secure.

3) Same questions about formail

Alas, the RESTRICT_EXEC method also disables the use of formail.
The only 100% secure method to allow formail (and a select set of other
programs) to execute would be by use of a chroot()ed environment.  This,
however, becomes a bit impractical, unless all programs and all mailfolders
of a recipient are accessible within the chroot()ed environment (possible,
but not a trivial task).
--
Sincerely,                                                          
srb(_at_)cuci(_dot_)nl
           Stephen R. van den Berg (AKA BuGless).

"Father's Day: Nine months before Mother's Day."

    ---------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Procmail, formail and AutoReply
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 11:09:42 -0700
From: "Timothy Ayodele" <toa(_at_)ttns(_dot_)net>
To: <procmail(_at_)Informatik(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE>

I am new to procmail, I did read the man page and other literature but non
directly answer my question!

All I want to do is set up some kind of autoreply to some email addresses
on my Email server. Also want to know if Procmail can do mailing list.

Help!!!  (Step through will be greatly appreciated)

    ---------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Software to spy people on the net
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 20:28:01 +0200
From: srb(_at_)cuci(_dot_)nl (Stephen R. van den Berg)
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer(_at_)pasteur(_dot_)fr>,
     procmail(_at_)Informatik(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer(_at_)pasteur(_dot_)fr> wrote:
On Monday 12 May 97, at 17 h 57, the keyboard of 
softnet(_at_)hotmail(_dot_)com
(Soft-Net) wrote:
Unfortunately, SmartList, by default, does not keep the Received headers
:-(

(I changed that on my lists.)

Could the list administrator check its log and give us the full headers
so we can complain?

Unfortunately, the listadministrator doesn't check often enough to
catch this request in time :-).
Anyway, to get at the original message, exactly as it came in, simply
send:

        To: procmail-request(_at_)informatik(_dot_)rwth-aachen(_dot_)de
        Subject: archive get latest/11041

Whereas, the latest/nnnnn value should be taken from the X-Mailinglist field
in the spam mail.  By now, the message has been thrown out of the running
latest-archive, I think.  The history, currently, for the procmail mailinglist
is set at 128 messages if I recall correctly.
--
Sincerely,                                                          
srb(_at_)cuci(_dot_)nl
           Stephen R. van den Berg (AKA BuGless).

"Father's Day: Nine months before Mother's Day."

    ---------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Help with a procmail problem.
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 14:24:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jeff Mercer <riffer(_at_)afn(_dot_)org>
To: procmail(_at_)Informatik(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE

Greetings. I'm hoping someone can help me with a procmail problem. I
subscribed to the list earlier today but haven't received any messages yet,
so forgive me if this seems out of place.

I have procmail installed on our mail server here at AFN, running on a
FreeBSD machine. It appears to work quite well without any performance
problems. However, my boss has been bitching at me about the occasional
occurence of a transient error that shows up as this:

                *               *               *

The original message was received at Wed, 14 May 1997 03:53:48 -0400 (EDT)
from root(_at_)localhost

   ----- The following addresses have delivery notifications -----
"|IFS=' ' && p=/usr/local/bin/procmail && test -f $p && exec $p -Yf- || exit 
75 #admin"  (unrecoverable error)
    (expanded from: admin)

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
"|IFS=' ' && p=/usr/local/bin/procmail && test -f $p && exec $p -Yf- || exit 
75 #admin"... Deferred
Message could not be delivered for 5 days
Message will be deleted from queue

  [ Part 2: "Included Message" ]

Reporting-MTA: dns; freenet1.afn.org
Arrival-Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 03:53:48 -0400 (EDT)

Final-Recipient: RFC822; admin(_at_)freenet1(_dot_)afn(_dot_)org
X-Actual-Recipient: RFC822; |IFS=' ' && p=/usr/local/bin/procmail && test -f 
$p
&& exec $p -Yf- || exit 75 #admin(_at_)freenet1(_dot_)afn(_dot_)org
Action: failed
Status: 4.4.7
Last-Attempt-Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 04:05:01 -0400 (EDT)

                *               *               *

The recipe in question that seems to cause it is quite simple:

:0 i :
* ^From.*mailer-daemon*
bounced

# Mail from "daemon" or "root" should go to the 'system' folder.
:0 :
* ^From(_dot_)*root(_at_)*afn(_dot_)org*
system

:0 :
* ^From(_dot_)*daemon(_at_)*afn(_dot_)org*
system

I don't get this error at all with my personal account, which receives
almost as much mail and has many more recipies. And the error only occurs
when I receive a message from root (usually a cron job or the like), never
when the mail comes from an actual user. I'm thinking it could be a locking
problem but that doesn't seem to quite fit...

 ####################==============---- ----==============####################
#      riffer(_at_)afn(_dot_)org - Jeff The Riffer - Drifter... - Homo 
Postmortemus      #
# Disclaimer: I am not a number, I am a free man, and my thoughts are my own. 
#
# GCS$ d-- H++ s:++ !g p+ au0 a29 w+ v?(*) C++ UA P? L 3 E---- N++ K- W-- M+ 
V#
# po--- Y+ t+ 5+ !j R G' tv b+ D++ B--- e+ u--- h--- f+ r+++ n- y+++*         
#

    ---------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Multiple From Addresses
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 20:41:10 +0200
From: srb(_at_)cuci(_dot_)nl (Stephen R. van den Berg)
To: procmail(_at_)Informatik(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE

ggeens(_at_)iname(_dot_)com <ggeens(_at_)iname(_dot_)com> wrote:
"era" == era eriksson <reriksso(_at_)cc(_dot_)helsinki(_dot_)fi> 
writes:
era> This will in fact match (^From +owner-freebsd-announce)|(that
era> other thing) (... this is pseudo-code; you can't really put the ^
era> inside the parens).

I think you can use the ^ inside of the parens. IIRC, The ^FROM_DAEMON
et al. expand to something which starts with `(^'. (Might even be
multiple parens.)

Quick check: it's a single paren.

In procmail regexps, one can use the ^ anywhere one likes (nested as deep




unsubscribe

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: procmail-d Digest UNSUBSCRIBE, Paul C.Y. Huang <=