procmail
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Identifying Message

2001-03-13 10:19:52
SoloCDM <deedsmis(_at_)aculink(_dot_)net> asked:

[90+ lines snipped]

As you may recall, when I made a reply to your message on the
mailing list, the first time, to get a response that would help in
this situation . . . no one replied.  Maybe it was everyone's day
off!?!?

Or maybe others, like myself, upon spotting the full quoting of a
90-line message we already read, tend to just blow it away with the
delete key.

There *ARE* practical reasons for netiquette.


I realize some administrators include the mailing list name after a
plus sign and before the "at" sign to distinguish differences in the
mailing lists.  When subscribed to several mailing lists, that sort of
management can be tedious.  Also, it's contingent on *well mannered*
end users including that address when responding with their message to
the mailing list.  That reason is enough *not* to use that routine.  I
tried including my address and the mailing list address in the
"Reply-To:", but mailing lists override the settings.

Is there possibly a way to guarantee a 75% result through the header
that would produce the intended results?

As you've discovered, anything that requires well-mannered people or
specific human actions is unreliable.  But the "plussed" addressing
is also unreliable because it's not a standard and is only supported
by sendmail, and when configured in a certain manner (as far as
I can tell).

I get 100% recognition* of mailing lists by using the envelope sender.
This you should find in either the "From " header (no colon) and/or
the "Return-Path:" header after the message is delivered to you.

It's not clear what your "intended results" are... what about this
message, which is sent to you and Cc'd to the list?  Using envelope
sender, you'll pick up the list copy as from the list, and the direct
copy as not being from a list.  This is what *I* like; if you want
something else, then it's harder because you get back to the
variability of how everyone replies depending on their
mood and/or email client.

If your "intended results" include *forcing* a list reply to include
a copy to you, then you're out of luck.  Some lists (like this one,
I think) allow you to set "Reply-To:" and will pass it through
(but that doesn't place a requirement on the respondent anyway),
but many others will either delete or rewrite that header.

I'm considering an idea that might work in a plain text email: Using a
"mailto:"; link with my address and the mailing list address followed
by the body of the message in the message.  It wouldn't take anymore
space than the mailing list and my address.  But that's contingent on
both addresses working together.

Huh?  Sorry, you lost me here.  My mail client doesn't do anything
with URLs so I don't see what you're thinking of doing.

Hope that helps some,
Stan

* well, it's not quite 100% because occasionally the lists change
host, as the procmail list itself has done, and sometimes they
change how they send things such as by switching to "VERP" or similar,
which are unique envelope-senders which let them identify what
bounced, but once they start doing that, can be matched with a pattern.
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail

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