However, I think it's a _very_ bad idea to respond to a possible loop
by generating another message, even 'just' a bounce message. ...
Good point.
I'd also suggest using something more unique than
"noloop(_at_)fw(_dot_)hac(_dot_)com".
What if someone else at fw.hac.com does the same thing?
Another good point...
If formail is started without any command line options, it
will force any mail coming from stdin into mailbox format
and will escape all bogus `From ' lines with a `>'.
Those look like command line options to me. Besides, you would need to
filter the entire message through formail, not just the header.
Guess I read too much into it. Since one of the options is "don't escape
From lines" I assumed that lack of _that_ option would escape them.
What (in more detail than the man page) does
'-I "From " -a "From "' do?
Would the following be better? Or a combination of both? Or
do I need something more?]
You probably just need to be invoking procmail with the -Y flag. That
tells procmail to handle the escaping of "From " lines in the body.
My .forward says
"|IFS=' '&&p=/usr/home/wwgrol/bin/procmail&&test -f $p&&exec $p -Yf-||exit 75
#wwgrol"
So is this not working? Are the double quotes necessary, or have any
effect?
# Standardize the formats of messages (untried idea for filter)
:0 fhW
| formail -c -z -k
Ick! Do you have a really broken mail reader that doesn't handle
continued header line?
No, but the man page suggests doing this to make it easy for recipes to
search the header lines.