procmail
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: vacation response

2000-04-22 16:03:21
From: "David W. Tamkin" <dattier(_at_)ripco(_dot_)com>

A vacation response should be sent only in reaction to mail that is
To: the vacationer.  If the address of the vacationer does not appear,
or it is only in Cc:, Apparently-To:, Resent-anything:, a visible
Bcc:, nor (in the absence of To:) Received:...for or Delivered-To:,
those don't count.

Okay.  Thanks.  Right, of course.  I left my thinking cap back with
the wine I had for dinner, I suppose.


Dallman asked,


T> * !^List-
T> * !^Mailing-List:

T> * !^X-.*-List:

T> * !^X-Listprocessor-Version:

R> That's a lot of "List" stuff that maybe could just be handled in one
R> line?  Certainly the last makes the third redundant, anyway.

No, the fourth does not include the third, nor vice versa.  The second and
the third could be combined, though:

 * !^(X-.*|Mailing)-List:

R> So how about something like:

R>   * ! List

R> and be done with it?

Way too coarse.  What if I send you a personal message, not knowing
you had just left on vacation, and the subject is "Are you as sick of
the procmail list as I am?" or "I'm going to meet Calista Flockhart"?
What if you were getting personal mail from somene named Alistair?

Well, in that vein, couldn't X-.*-List also not match this?

        X-Reminder: D-Man's Wish-List

Wouldn't we at least want to remove spaces?

Let me try again:

        * ! ^(X?|Mailing)-?[a-z-]*List[a-z:-]+


-- 
    \     .-.     .-.     .-.     .-.     .-.     .-.     .-.     /
     \-d-/-m-\-a-/-n-\-(_at_)-/-n-\-e-/-t-\-c-/-o-\-m-/-.-\-c-/-o-\-m-/
      '-'     '-'     '-'     '-'     '-'     '-'     '-'     '-'

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