Apparently the recipe was rewrapped by your editor. So it probably
doesn't.
Currently messing around with a Win95 client hooked up to the Unix box and
well, the mailer does seem to mess things up major league. Perhaps it is
time to return to X:)).
* [iI][nN][fF][oO]@
This should probably be
* ^TOinfo@
(Procmail is case-insensitive by default.)
This is useful to know, I tend to be very cautious in such things as a rule
(must be all those years programming).
* !^X-Rinfo: info(_at_)rayware(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk
You should perhaps use X-Loop instead -- this is a special case in
e.g. formail's eyes. X-Rinfo will most likely be stripped by anything
that sends an autoreply to your autoreply; X-Loop stands a small
fighting chance.
I presumed that either would be stripped in /any/ case. I put this in to
stop any local mail loops if I had botched the recipe (I have done that
before!).
ation" -I "From: Information_Server <info(_at_)rayware(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk>"
:0 ah
| cat - /var/spool/mail/auto.info 2>&1 | $SENDMAIL -oi -t -f sysbot
}
(Wrapping obviously broken.)
(See how you are yourself setting it up to +not+ insert a Re: and +do+
in effect direct replies back to itself? Perhaps you should add a
Reply-to: nobody or something?)
I have thought about this, it just seemed neat to get the mail from the
thing you wrote to IYSWIM. You have made me think though - I shall I think
change it!
Is it wise to keep the response message in /var/spool/mail? (I mean,
it won't break anything, but will you remember where it is three weeks
from now?)
It has been there a few months now but I take your point. To my way of
thinking it had the advantage of having all the mail bits together ...
Try this:
:0ch
* ^TOinfo@
* ! ^X-loop: info(_at_)rayware(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk
* ! ^Subject: Re:
* ! ^FROM_DAEMON
| ( formail -rt -A"X-Loop: info(_at_)rayware(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk" \
-I"From: Information Server <info(_at_)rayware(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk>" \
-I"Reply-to: nobody(_at_)rayware(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk" ;
cat /var/spool/mail/auto.info ) 2>&1 | $SENDMAIL -oi -t -f sysbot
This is off the top of my head and I might have missed some subtleties
in the original.
I will cheers.
---
Ian