procmail
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Is bad From_ line an error by procmail, sendmail, or neither?

1999-09-28 19:02:52
I asked whether procmail, specifically procmail invoked with
the -f- flag, might be incorrectly re-writing From_ headers
under certain circumstances, or whether I should do battle with
Netcom/Mindspring/Earthlink system management (or search my procmailrc)
to find what is causing a problem. Philip responded to my questioning
thus:

I would test it by pulling the -f- flag from your .forward file then
sending yourself a similar message.

So I did.

I ran a few tests, and they point to -f- being the culprit. Procmail
version info:

        ~/> procmail -v
        [No write since last change]
        procmail v3.13.1 1999/04/05, Copyright (c) 1999, Stephen R. van den Berg
                                                                
<srb(_at_)cuci(_dot_)nl>

        Submit questions/answers to the procmail-related mailinglist by sending 
to:
                <procmail-users(_at_)procmail(_dot_)org>

        And of course, subscription and information requests for this list to:
                <procmail-users-request(_at_)procmail(_dot_)org>

        Locking strategies:     dotlocking, flock()
        Default rcfile:         $HOME/.procmailrc
        Your system mailbox:    /var/spool/mail/rik


The test .procmailrc:

        SHELL=/bin/ksh
        MAILDIR=$HOME/Mail
        :0
        $DEFAULT


The test input

        telnet netcom4.netcom.com 25
        HELO rik
        MAIL FROM: <"AB CD"@netcom.com>
        RCPT TO: rik
        DATA
        Subject: varies by test

        .


The .forward for test 1

        "|TZ=EST5EDT; export TZ && exec /usr/local/nuglops/bin/procmail -t 
MODE=prod || exit 75"


The result for test 1

        From "AB CD"@netcom.com  Tue Sep 28 18:24:56 1999
        Return-Path: <"AB CD"@netcom.com>
        Received: from rik (rik(_at_)netcom4(_dot_)netcom(_dot_)com 
[199.183.9.104])
                by netcom4.netcom.com (8.8.5-r-beta/8.8.5/(NETCOM v1.02)) with 
SMTP id SAA16928
                for rik; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:24:29 -0700 (PDT)
        Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:24:29 -0700 (PDT)
        From: "AB CD"@netcom.com
        Message-Id: 
<199909290124(_dot_)SAA16928(_at_)netcom4(_dot_)netcom(_dot_)com>
        Subject: basic pm, no f opt
        To: rik
        Status: RO


The .forward for test 2

        "|TZ=EST5EDT; export TZ && exec /usr/local/nuglops/bin/procmail -tf- 
MODE=prod || exit 75"


The result for test 2

        From "AB  Tue Sep 28 21:27:52 1999
        Return-Path: <"AB CD"@netcom.com>
        Received: from rik (rik(_at_)netcom4(_dot_)netcom(_dot_)com 
[199.183.9.104])
                by netcom4.netcom.com (8.8.5-r-beta/8.8.5/(NETCOM v1.02)) with 
SMTP id SAA17445
                for rik; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:27:32 -0700 (PDT)
        Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:27:32 -0700 (PDT)
        From: "AB CD"@netcom.com
        Message-Id: 
<199909290127(_dot_)SAA17445(_at_)netcom4(_dot_)netcom(_dot_)com>
        Subject: f option, basic pm
        To: rik


A test with no .forward gives a correct (like test 1, above) result. The
only differences are that the From_ line has the server's TZ setting, and
not mine, and that there is only one space 'twixt the name and date:

        From "AB CD"@netcom.com Tue Sep 28 18:10:34 1999
        Return-Path: <"AB CD"@netcom.com>

-- 
Rik Kabel          Old enough to be an adult              
rik(_at_)netcom(_dot_)com

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