David wrote:
No, a negative score and a zero score will both be reported
as null.
I stand (sit at my keyboard<g>) corrected.
Walter must mean "c", not "f". If a recipe's action would
otherwise be delivering, you can make it non-delivering by
adding the "c" flag (procmail will deliver a _c_opy instead).
Actually, my intent was my spamfilter where I want
*THE ORIGINAL EMAIL* to go through several filters, rather
than spawn several copies, each of which is tested only once.
For example, the following series of tests could potentially
generate *SIX* "X-Reject:" headers *IN THE SAME MESSAGE*. I
do *NOT* want *SIX MESSAGES* with 1 "X-Reject:" header each.
After all the filters (there are more) the last recipe counts
the number of "X-Reject:" headers in the email, and files it
accordingly.
=============================================================
:0f
*$!^(Sender|From|Reply-To):.*$MYISP
*$!^(Apparently.*|To|Cc):(_dot_)*$LOGNAME(_at_)$MYISP
| formail -A "X-Reject: Not addressed to me"
:0f
* ^(Date|Subject|Reply-To):(.*$)+Received:
| formail -A "X-Reject: Possible forged _Received: from_ line"
:0f
* ^Received:.from.*.\(\[.*.by.(.*$)+Received:
| formail -A "X-Reject: No reverse DNS returned"
:0f
* ^X-Advertisement:
| formail -A "X-Reject: X-Advertisement:"
:0f
* ^X-UIDL:
| formail -A "X-Reject: Invalid X-UIDL:"
:0f
* ^Comments:.*Authenticated sender
* !^X-Mailer:.*Pegasus Mail
| formail -A "X-Reject: Authenticated sender BS"
=============================================================
--
Walter Dnes <waltdnes(_at_)interlog(_dot_)com> procmail spamfilter
http://www.interlog.com/~waltdnes/spamdunk/spamdunk.htm
Why a fiscal conservative opposes Toronto 2008 OWE-lympics
http://www.interlog.com/~waltdnes/owe-lympics/owe-lympics.htm