On 28 February 1999, deedsmis(_at_)ris(_dot_)net <deedsmis(_at_)ris(_dot_)net>
wrote:
To Whom,
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 14:00:59 +0200 (EET)
From: era eriksson <era(_at_)iki(_dot_)fi>
To: deedsmis(_at_)ris(_dot_)net
On Sat, 27 Feb 1999 03:45:54 -0700, deedsmis(_at_)ris(_dot_)net wrote:
> I'm using procmail-3.11-1.i386.rpm and I'm not able to get
> '^FROM_DAEMON' or '^FROM_MAILER' to work at all in a recipe!
Procmail version? What does the input look like? Have you tried
VERBOSE logging? Perhaps you could post an example?
Below, I'll show validity that proves '^FROM_DAEMON' and
'^FROM_MAILER' in procmail-3.11-1.i386.rpm are definitely buggy. And
in addition to that, I'll show '^TO_' is also buggy.
[...]
:0:
* ^(From.*|TO)redhat.com
"Technical Support.sbd/linux.sbd/Red Hat"
[...]
:0:
* ^(FROM_MAILER|TO_)redhat.com
"Technical Support.sbd/linux.sbd/Red Hat"
And for the biggy, '^FROM_DAEMON':
:0:
* ^(FROM_DAEMON|TO_)redhat.com
"Technical Support.sbd/linux.sbd/Red Hat"
[...]
Actually, all you have succeeded to prove is that you didn't
understand what you read in the manual. The manual says:
: MISCELLANEOUS
: If the regular expression contains `^TO_' it will be sub
: stituted by `(^((Original-)?(Resent-)?(To|Cc|Bcc)|(X-
: Envelope|Apparently(-Resent)?)-To):(.*[^-a-zA-Z0-9_.])?)',
(and similar for ^FROM_DAEMON and ^FROM_MAILER). Now, does your regexp
contain ^TO_ ? Try this for a change:
:0:
* (^FROM_MAILER|^TO_)redhat\.com
"Technical Support.sbd/linux.sbd/Red Hat"
Regards,
Liviu Daia
--
Dr. Liviu Daia e-mail: daia(_at_)stoilow(_dot_)imar(_dot_)ro
Institute of Mathematics web page: http://www.imar.ro/~daia
of the Romanian Academy PGP key: http://www.imar.ro/~daia/daia.asc