Re: Help with filter recipe.

Hi!

Thanks for the reply Era.

Please note comments below.

On Fri, 11 Dec 1998 17:00:22 +0200 (EET), era eriksson (aka "era"),
regarding 'Re: Help with filter recipe.', said: 

    era> On 11 Dec 1998 14:18:49 +0000, Nelson Jose dos Santos Ferreira
    era> <Nelson(_dot_)Ferreira(_at_)inesc(_dot_)pt> wrote:
    >> ------
    >> #! /bin/sh
    >> /bin/sed 's/[    ]*^K[   ]*/\
    >> /g' | /bin/sed 's/[      ]*^K[   ]*/\
    >> /g'
    >> exit 0
    >> -----

    era> (Parenthetically:

    era> #!/bin/sed -f
    era> s/[    ]*^K[   ]*/\
    era> /g
    era> s/[    ]*^K[   ]*/\
    era> /g

Never thought of that. I'll give it a try... Less overhead.

    era> You can pass several commands to sed from the command line too, with
    era> the -e option: sed -e 's/[     ]*^K[   ]*/\
    era> /g' -e 's/[    ]*^K[   ]*/\
    era> /g' ... It is not clear to me why you are doing the same substitution
    era> twice, assume there's a typo there. Oh, wait, one is a literal ctrl-k
    era> and the other is the string caret-k. Is that why?)

Yep. The literal caret-k is the reason. 

    era> sed is usually not very tolerant of control characters. Have you
    era> verified that this works as intended from the command line, on the
    era> host where Procmail runs?

Yes. I did that.

    era> Also, I hope you are actually using real ctrl-K:s
    era> in the script rather than the string caret-K. But
    era> like I said, your sed might not be prepared to cope
    era> with that; if not, investigate whether you can
    era> accomplish what you want with Perl (simple
    era> -- Perl basically understands sed s/// syntax, but
    era>    has a lot of regex
    era> goodies and extensions, and of course a whole
    era> language to go with it);

    era>     | perl -e 's/\s*\013\s*//g'

I did thought of that but I thought that calling sed would
make for less processing overhead. Does your experience tell 
otherwise ?

    era> or perhaps something involving

    era>     | tr '\013' '\012'  # this will not kill whitespace around ^K, of 
course

    era> which you are of course free to elaborate on.


Now for the real problem....

    >> I call it on my .procmailrc like this:
    >> :0 fw
    >> *$ ${FROM_LIST}(@|\<)pilotgear
    >> | $HOME/bin/pilotgear.strip.k
    >> :0:
    >> *$ ${FROM_LIST}(@|\<)pilotgear
    >> mail.pilot-gear

    era> If this only appears in this one list, you can do both in one fell
    era> swoop:

    era>     :0w:
    era>     * $ ${FROM_LIST}\<pilotgear
    era>     | strip-ctrl-ks >>mail.pilot-gear

I'll try this.

    era> \< already covers @ so you don't need the alternation you had there.

Really ? I had some funny behaviour which was solved when I
added the alternation... Maybe I'm confused :)

    era> Alternatively, perhaps you want to make sure you only filter the body;
    era> in that case, your original two-recipe script is better, but you need
    era> a b flag -- and perhaps you want to make sure the message actually
    era> contains a ^K before you go and spawn off the filter:

    era>     :0bfw
    era>     * B ?? ^K
    era>     * $ ${FROM_LIST}\<pilotgear
    era>     | strip-ctrl-ks

    era>     # proceed as earlier ...

I'll try this before your previous suggestion.

    era> Throughout this message, I have used the string caret-K where you
    era> should have a literal ^K character (ASCII 11).

Does that include the condition on the
        * B ?? ^K
line ???

    >> still have Control-G in it, dispite the filter which I know 
    era>                       ^
    era> (Perhaps this is the big problem? You talked about ctrl-K earlier. :-)

Control-G was a typo of mine :))

    era> Hope this helps,

It did immensily.

Thanks 
        Nelson


[...]

---
Nelson Jose dos Santos Ferreira |  .  .  .  | INESC/PT-Servicos 
Systems Integrator              | |. /  / . | Lisbon,PORTUGAL
mailto:Nelson(_dot_)Ferreira(_at_)inesc(_dot_)pt |.||\| | /  | Phone:+351 (1) 
3100050
                                | .|<:/  \. | Fax  :+351 (1) 3100008