procmail
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: "TO" equals "from"?

1998-09-30 18:18:40
At 18:26 30-09-98 -0500, Adam Rice wrote:
:0
* ^TOxj-list
! admin(_at_)crossroads(_dot_)net

Here's the rub: When I send something to my own list, the listserver then
tries to send me a copy (since I am a listmember). But in response to list
traffic, the recipe shown above seems to match on the  *sender*, creating a
mail loop. This is relatively benign--the listserver does not try to

Are you sure it isn't matching on the original To: from the original
message, or is the address list rewritten?  In normal list serving
situations, the recipients are recieving the message with it "To: list".
If you're forwarding messages that are addressed to a list, and recieving
those same messages again, then of course you're going to be forwarding the
messages when you see them again.

That would, as expected, generate a mail loop.

If your list server inserts other headers (or better, if you can ADD and
X-Loop header, you can revise your recipe:

:0
* ^TOxj-list
* !^X-Loop:.*xj-list
! admin(_at_)crossroads(_dot_)net

The additional line says:

if NOT (starting from beginning of line)X-Loop:(any number of
characters)xj-list

So that becomes, if "to the list, and not "been at the list (i.e. delivered
FROM the list)", then forward it to the list, otherwise hand it to me.

If you can't change the list server config, try:

* !^Resent-From:(_dot_)*admin(_at_)crossroads(_dot_)net

(as appropriate to an ACTUAL header created by the list processor which is
unique to it).


Not seeing the headers from a typical message, or one of the looped
messages, I can't say what your server is providing that would be
triggering the ^TO regexp, but there are a variety of headers checked.

Have you tried enabling verbose logging?

VERBOSE=on
LOGFILE=$MAILDIR/log

Let the system process a few messages (to you, say, with the alternate
pre-filter you mentioned), and then examine the log.  This will provide a
lot of insight as to what it is actually matching on.

using the latest version of procmail, so this should be OK), and I have not

"the latest version" is not an accurrate technical statement.  Provide an
actual version number for reference.  run 'procmail -v' to get the version.

---
 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

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