Several times in the past I have written e-mail messages that I
shouldn't have, that I should have sat on longer. Perhaps this one
will be another of those. I've sat on this one for most of a day and
it still seems reasonable, addressing specific where it can and
requesting details where it can't, so I'm going to go ahead and send
it. However, I beg the forgiveness of the other readers of this list
for a mostly off-topic post.
Philip Guenther
deedsmis(_at_)ris(_dot_)net writes:
Philip,
You're the first to put things in their proper syntax and to be polite
about it.
But, to the others: enough, enough... enough!!!!! Everyone is so quick
with a rebuttal that they forgot to notice the pattern frequently
occurring on this mailing list of criticism going out with every reply.
I'm not going to give details, but it is like saying to another you
walk to fast, you forgot to tie your shoes, you didn't brush your
teeth, and on and on and on! This is the first mailing list that I've
discovered with nit picking at its all time high. Granted, you get an
occasional disgruntled person on other mailing lists but not every
other message.
You must be refering to my response in which I called your problem
report "completely useless". I'm sorry if my frankness bothered you,
but it is my experience from answering questions on this list for the
last few years and in my daily job for the last several that if you can
get a person to see, just once, how little information they've actually
given you, they'll turn around and be a much better reporter of
problems from then on.
Or maybe my message wasn't the one that prompted this -- indeed, your
first paragraph would seem to say so. However, having reviewed the
other reponses you received, I don't see how, as era eriksson and
Christopher Neill were both polite in what they wrote, as far as I can
tell. Hmm, era's message was actually in reply to and critique of
Christopher's, so it couldn't have been him.
I will say that if it was only one message or person who was rude in
your sight, a personal message would have been more appropriate, no?
First you get several people who lay down the law and they are so
insistent about their rules as if it is the law. So, I used a guess
estimate and started following their rules, and below is what it led me
If you're refering to my 'rules of problem reporting', your next report
passed them with flying colors in my book.
to. Not one man page said macros _must_ be used in a specific syntax
Okay, let's see what the manpages say. The procmailrc(5) manpages
says:
If the regular expression contains `^TO_' it will be substi-
tuted by `(^((Original-)?(Resent-)?(To|Cc|Bcc)|(X-Envelope
|Apparently(-Resent)?)-To):(.*[^-a-zA-Z0-9_.])?)', which
should catch all destination specifications containing a
specific address.
Hmm, that ^TO_ is in quotes, and it doesn't say "contains a
subexpression ^TO_". Let's check the procmailex(5) manpage and see how
^TO_, ^TO, et al are used there. Some searching shows that ^TO_
doesn't appear in the procmailex(5) manpage at all, while ^FROM_MAILER
and ^FROM_DAEMON only appear in conditions by themselves. However, the
^TO appears four times, once on its own and three times combined with a
match against the Subject: header. The first of those reads:
:0
* (^TO|^Subject:.*)TeX[^t]
texmail
The other two have the same syntax.
manner, because you have others eluding to the fact that it can be used
in another manner; ie: ^(FROM_DAEMON).
Well, whoever included that text, "^(FROM_DAEMON)", was wrong. In the
interest of stamping out incorrect information, would you please email
them (privately) and inform them of their error?
Also, the man pages were only
laying down an example of what the macros can do. _Not_, this is it and
only this is it in the way of syntax. Otherwise, the latitude for
syntax should of had a more narrow scope in the use of coding in the
program.
The passage from the procmailrc(5) manpage that I quoted above seems
clear enough to me. How did you interpret the word "contains"?
I can't figure out what that last sentence is saying.
Obviously, everyone that takes a fancy in pointing their fingers will
want to respond to this message and give their two bits, but don't
forget to take a look at the three fingers pointing back at yourselves
while you're pointing at me.
If any of you are going to give some advice, then be consistent with
the way things s-h-o-u-l-d be. Last of all, if you believe that I'm
breaking my own rules by criticizing all of you that made the
mistakes... y-o-u-r mistaken. You invited me with your manners by the
way you replied to every other posting.
After I've had some time to cool down, then maybe you can try other
attempts. But please, no more jumping on everyone's case and ramming it
down their throats.
<guffaw> ROTFL
Let me get this straight: you asked for some free help, received some
answers, felt them rude in some way, flamed us back (telling us that we
'invited' the flammage), and are now suggesting that _we_ wait for
_you_ to cool down before we beg your pardon by answering your
questions in a more courteous fashion.
The mind boggles.
Tell me again why I should spend any of my time doing that?
Philip Guenther