[I CC'd this personal mail to procmail list, because many may
find it interesting]
|Wed 98-04-08 Kay Hayen <Kay(_at_)kayhayen(_dot_)com> mail.default
|
| (+list.procmail) wrote:
|
| BTW: knowing that you are procmail guru from my point of view,
Thank you; but
I bow to Era, phil and David, who really shine in procmail mailing list.
| I've
| wondered why you have chosen to go for this realname. There must
| be better mechanisms, right?
We don't have sendmail that would support plus addressing here, so
I cooked up "poor man's" plus addressing by using RFC comment.
See newest pm-tips.txt
Cheers!
jari
13.2 Using RFC comment trick for additional information
I invented this idea after reading Eli's exellent faq about email
addressing. Please read it (especially section 19.) before you
continue in order to understand what I'm going to present.
I have an account which does not support plus addressing and I was
kinda jelous to everyone that could use this neat sendmail
addressing scheme. The plus addressing helps so much better to deal
with mailing list messages.
But as it turns out, we can simulate in some extent plus addressing
with pure RFC compliant address. We use RFC comment, which is
delimited by parenthesis include it into address. According to
Eli's paper, comments should be preserved in emal while they may
not exist in the extact place where originally put. So, send out
message with following `From' or `Reply-To' line
<login(_at_)site(_dot_)com> (Foo Bar+list.procmail)
Or if your email address's localpart already signify your first and
surname already, you could use simply:
<first(_dot_)surname(_at_)site(_dot_)com> (+list.procmail)
It's very unfortunate that when you subscribe to lists, the comment
is not preserved when you're added to the list. Only the address
part is preserved. I even tried to use following syntax which
forces the comment inside andgles and any program that gets address
from inside angles would have picked the comment too.
<first.surname(+list.procmail)@site.com>
But I had no luck. Eg procmail based mailing lists use formail
to derive the return address and `procmail' does not preserve
comments. The above gets truncated to
first(_dot_)surname(_at_)site(_dot_)com
Ah well. (groan). In case you find any use for this COMMENT_PLUS
approach, here is example recipe to trap these plussed addresses
that are sent to your account. The recipe says: if it is addressed
to my account and if we find `(+' followed by anything until `)';
then set PLUS to the contents. The `PLUS' variable would be set to
`list.procmail'
TOME = "(login1|login2)"
PLUS # kill variable
:0
*$ ^TO().*$TOME
* \/[(][+]\/[^)]+
{
PLUS = $MATCH
:0: # sink to list.procmail
$PLUS
}
Pretty simple. And you can put anything inside RFC comment and do
watever you want with these plus addresses. _NOTE_: there are no
guarrantees that the RFC comment is preserved everytime, but I'd
say it is 95% of the cases where mail is delivered from one server
to another.
And if you discuss in usenet groups, you could use address
Reply-To: <first.surname(+mail.usenet)@site.com>
And the PLUS recipe above would sink all personal usenet replies to you
into folder `mail.usenet', supposing the sender's MUA grabbed the
`Reply-To' field and not the `From' field. Or you can classify
the usenet groups:
Reply-To: <first.surname(+usenet.games)@site.com>
Reply-To: <first.surname(+usenet.emacs)@site.com>
Reply-To: <first.surname(+usenet.linux)@site.com>