On Tue, 24 Jun 1997 you (era eriksson) wrote:
It is unclear to me whether the -s does anything useful. (Perhaps I
should reread the manuals again :-)
No, it doesn't do anything here, as it's splitting on a single
input message. It was left over from dropping a pipe to appnmail
for diagnostics.
Since you only add a header, it's needless to pass the body through
formail. You save a few bytes down a pipeline.
Thanks. Noted.
The ^TO_ macro (available in 3.11pre4 [or so] and newer) will catch
Cc: and various Resent-To: as well as the normal To:
Yes, but we're dealing here with a tag that is very specifically
attached (by my incoming procmail filter to the Reply-To: header,
and hence) to the To: header of the reply.
You already have a condition line. You can only have exactly one.
I think you mean "action line".
So the { } is superfluous and likely a syntax error.
Yes, you're right. It doesn't throw up an error in my version.
The :f flag turns the recipe into a non-delivering one so Procmail
will proceed after this recipe with a modified message.
OK, thanks. I obviously need to think quite a bit more about this.
For one thing, although I said this works well, it turns out that
it falls over passing $@ strings with spaces in them, like "Philip
Guenther <guenther(_at_)gac(_dot_)edu>" (as indeed Philip himself has
warned...).
Thanks, everybody (particularly Timothy Luoma <luomat(_at_)peak(_dot_)org>,
who has suffered the additional burden of receiving munged mail from
me while I was messing with this). I'll take these thoughts away
and try to come back with something that really works.
el bid