When I wrote,
T> One thing procmail really needs is a recipe flag that means "don't feed
T> stdin to the action at all."
Philip Guenther responded,
G> I personally don't see any real gain except, perhaps, in user comfort
G> level, over the 'i' flag. Would a manpage change suffice? Have you
G> tried suggesting this to Stephen?
If there is no gain over what `ir' can already do, then a note in the man
page would do the job. I've suggested enough to Stephen not to have loaded
this onto the pile, though I have suggested the next one:
T> (And one thing formail needs is an option to say,
T> "process command line options in order of their appearance.")
G> That would greatly increase the complexity and size of formail.
Darn. There may be another approach, then. If the sequence of carrying out
header-changing options has to be hard-coded, can it be changed from the cur-
rent order? The need to pipe formail to formail to formail to get expected
results is so annoying.
G> Besides, what would it mean if you put that option last?
The user's head would explode. Better, the sender's head would explode.
Just feed all spam to formail -K (for "Kaboom") and all spammers' heads
would explode.
[Sorry; I've had a stressful week, and my head just exploded.]