| Sat 13.9.97 "J. Daniel Smith"
<dans(_at_)handel(_dot_)eu(_dot_)bristol(_dot_)com>
| I've appended my current spamcheck.rc file below.
Exellent contribution. Thank you! Would you set up file server
so that people can get this fileter by email.
"send procmail spam-filter"
I recorded your address and this filter to upcoming "Procmail tips page"
at my ftp site. I'}m currently compiling it and including best parts
from the past and from the present discussion list.
Would you explain this in more detail. The
| * 1^1 ADDRESSES ?? ^.+$
| * 1^1 ADDRESSES ?? ,
| * $-${MAX_COMMAS}^0
Part troubles me.
| # No large headers
| :0
| {
| MAX_COMMAS=45
| #
| # From David W. Tamkin <dattier(_at_)wwa(_dot_)com>
| #
| :0h # H is implicit; this is h
| * ^Resent-(To|Cc):
| ADDRESSES=|formail -czxResent-To: -xResent-Cc:
| :0Eh
| ADDRESSES=|formail -czxTo: -xCc: -xApparently-To:
|
| # Now, the number of addressees should be the number of non-empty
| # lines (procmail always sees an extra empty line at the end of a
| # search area) plus the number of commas; this will still overcount
| # if someone has a comma inside a name comment (thus MAX_COMMAS
| # instead of MAX_ADDRESSES).
| :0
| * 1^1 ADDRESSES ?? ^.+$
| * 1^1 ADDRESSES ?? ,
| * $-${MAX_COMMAS}^0
| {
| SPAMCHECK_SPAM=yes
| :0fwh
| | formail -A "X-SpamCheck-Reason: Too many commas in addresses"
| }
| }
how do I reqad this receipe? Ok; the headers must not be there,
but why [^>]*FREE; whouldn't just "FREE" be enough?
| :0BD
| * !^(In-Reply-To:|References:|Subject:[ ]*Re(\[[0-9]+\])?:).+
| * [^>]*FREE
| {
| SPAMCHECK_SPAM=yes
| :0fwh
| | formail -A "X-SpamCheck-Reason: Text 'FREE' detected"
| }
| :0
| * SPAMCHECK_SPAM ?? yes
| {
| :0h
| * SPAMCHECK_ACTION ?? discard
| /dev/null
|
| MATCH # unset it to start
| :0Efwh # if set to "subject" make it work if there is a subject or not
| * SPAMCHECK_ACTION ?? subject
| * 1^0 ^Subject\/:.*
| * 1^0
| | formail -I"Subject: SPAM$MATCH"
Why there is E flag here? (I'm not comfortable with E flags yet...)
What does the empty 1^0 do?
Cheers!
jari