procmail
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: formail -- order of arguments matters????

1997-07-28 08:44:00
Quoting Timothy J Luoma (luomat(_at_)peak(_dot_)org):
HOWEVER I'd like this to go into formail's man page... it would help folks  
figure it out... cost me about 30 minutes (duh!)

It is in the formail man page:
       formail [+skip] [-total] [-bczfrktnedqBY] [-p prefix]
            [-D maxlen idcache]
            [-x headerfield] [-X headerfield]
            [-a headerfield] [-A headerfield]
            [-i headerfield] [-I headerfield]
            [-u headerfield] [-U headerfield]
            [-R oldfield newfield]
            [-m minfields] [-s [command [arg ...]]]

Note that it clearly shows that the "headerfield" must follow the
"-x". You _can_ compress things a bit more than the above form
shows, but that doesn't mean that you _should_. If you
had written the original as "formail -z -x headerfield" it would
have worked out all right, and it only would have cost three
extra characters (as opposed to "formail -zxheaderfield", which
is a more compressed form of the correct syntax). What is gained
by cutting corners?

-- 
Michael Stone, Sysadmin, ITRI     PGP: key 1024/76556F95 from mit keyserver,
mstone(_at_)itri(_dot_)loyola(_dot_)edu            finger, or email with 
"Subject: get pgp key" 

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