At 04:36 PM 11/12/97 -0500, Scott Anguish wrote:
[snip]
The problem here is that email sent to multiple lists all wind up in the
first folder..
Suggestion: examine the headers on messages you get from these lists, and
use something OTHER than the ^TO macro to match. For example, a pared down
copy of the headers from your message to the procmail list which I am
replying to:
Return-Path: <procmail-request(_at_)Informatik(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE>
Received: from Campino.Informatik.RWTH-Aachen.DE
(Campino.Informatik.rwth-aachen.DE [137.226.116.240])
by mail.professional.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA00055
for <PSE-L(_at_)mail(_dot_)professional(_dot_)org>; Wed, 12 Nov 1997
13:50:06 -0800
Received: (from lists(_at_)localhost) by Campino.Informatik.RWTH-Aachen.DE
(8.8.7/RBI-Z13) id WAA14557; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 22:42:02 +0100 (MET)
X-Authentication-Warning: campino.informatik.rwth-aachen.de: lists set
sender to procmail-request(_at_)informatik(_dot_)rwth-aachen(_dot_)de using -f
To: procmail(_at_)Informatik(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
Resent-Message-ID: <"yW-A8C.A.kfD.uFia0"@campino>
Resent-From: procmail(_at_)Informatik(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
X-Mailing-List: <procmail(_at_)informatik(_dot_)rwth-aachen(_dot_)de>
archive/latest/15312
X-Loop: procmail(_at_)informatik(_dot_)rwth-aachen(_dot_)de
Resent-Sender: procmail-request(_at_)Informatik(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
Now, not all of these headers are appropriate for identifying messages from
this list (the resent-message-id for example, and the auth-warning is
something that simply shouldn't be occurring, plus the recieved lines are
bound to vary some day). Resent-Sender and Resent-From are both good
choices. These, and other variant fields appear in most resent mail.
Use something FROM a list, and you'll be filing the copy of the message you
received FROM THAT LIST and no other.
:0:
* ^Resent-From:[ ]*procmail(_at_)Informatik(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
procmail-folder
If I seperates out each test I could handle it much better, making sure
each
copy gets put into its place...
Certainly, otherwise they all end up in one folder.
For this many lists, you'll find it advantageous to use:
INCLUDERC=rcfilename.rc
in a central .procmailrc, and then add the mailing list filters to separate
files (grouped - I have a humour file, a tech file, an admin file, etc).
Order the recipes within the files in the order of volume (if you get
dozens of messages from one group each day, it is screaming to be checked
for first).
but will it be significantly slower?
Homing in on specific headers, rather than usung all-encompassing macros
like ^TO should offer some speed improvement, though I can't say that it
would be preceivable.
I've already dropped all the BODY searches in my spam filters due to the
slowness on large emails (maybe I should just test for size before testing
bodies?)
Heh, I currently have a 26,000 item spamdomain match (plus specific header
checks, a general twit filter, and subject keyphrase filtering). A couple
extra seconds before I see my mail (or more importantly, DON'T see SPAM) is
worth it to me. But then, it's my computer, not some ISP.
---
Please DO NOT carbon me on list replies. I'll get my copy from the list.
Sean B. Straw / Professional Software Engineering
Post Box 2395 / San Rafael, CA 94912-2395