procmail
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: tab characters in headers

1998-06-05 15:28:19
Mark McCreary wrote,

| Some users manage to get the Tab character (^I) in the headers, after the
| Header and before the data.
|
| For example
|
|      Date:^IThu 4 Jun 1998
|      From:^Ijoe schmoo <joe(_at_)mailexcite(_dot_)com>

That's perfectly legitimate, Mark, and procmail and formail can both
handle it.

David

Thanks for the prompt response. That is good news indeed.



| This then throws off Formail when I go to extract the Sender email address,
| with
|
|      SENDER  = `formail -rtzx To:`

What do you find in $SENDER instead of the return address?


When procmail is running, the log looks like this

procmail: Executing "formail,-rtzx,To:"
procmail: Assigning "SENDER="

and SENDER is blank or null.



| Has anybody solved this problem, or have any suggestions on how to work
| around.

Moreover, formail -r rewrites the head, so those tabs should be gone anyway
before -x looks at the new To: line.  I tried what you described and had no
difficulty getting proper results (return address only, no tabs) from
formail -rtzxTo:.

My first guess is that maybe you are invoking an old version of formail that
didn't have the -z option.  This has nothing to do with the tabs.


Ok, I'm pretty sure that I have Procmail 3.11pre7, and I have tried this on
a couple of different machines. All running Red Hat Linux, with kernel
2.0.32 or better.

I do not see how to get the version back from a formail invocation. If I
scan the object code, I can see a date that says 1997/04/11 10:29:05.

When I invoke formail from the command line, with tabs in the headers, I
get a Segmentation fault (core dumped).

        formail -rtzx To: <Mailbox

If I invoke the same command on an edited version of Mailbox, where I have
removed the Tab characters, then formail correctly extracts and returns the
email address.

So, assuming that I have the most recent version of formail, and if that
works on your machine, and not on my machine, I am stumped on what the next
step is.

Thanks for your insight.

mark


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