From: Andrew Edelstein <andrew(_at_)pure-chaos(_dot_)com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 14:06:49 -0700
On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 12:27:27PM -0700, Cyndi Norman wrote:
> :0:
> * ^TO(CO-CURE(_at_)LISTSERV(_dot_)NODAK(_dot_)EDU)
> $HOME/Mail/posts/medical
Why is the address in parens?
Because most of my recipes that are similar have multiple strings in them.
This one just happens to have one, so I left the parentheses. Would that
affect how it works? or is it just an asthetic thing?
> :0:
> * ^SUBJECT(.*MedPulse|\
> .*CO-CURE|\
> .*CFS-Owners)
> $HOME/Mail/posts/medical
That should probably be
* ^Subject:.*(MedPulse|CO-CURE|CFS-Owners)
Okay, it's time for me to do some serious searching for what the difference
is between (.* and .*( and the addition of _ and other fun things. Not to
mention the colon you added.
"SUBJECT" is not a procmail macro; Only TO, TO_, FROM_DAEMON and
FROM_MAILER.
Not that I don't believe you but I have seen (and used) subject, from, and
others all the time. They do work...so what does it mean that they aren't
"procmail macros?"
> Here's the header from the email it ignored (ended up in my default
> mailbox):
<snipped>
> Here's the header from an email the filter(s) worked perfectly on:
What does your log say?
It's not particularly useful. Here's an example:
From CO-CURE(_at_)LISTSERV(_dot_)NODAK(_dot_)EDU Tue Jun 26 11:42:51 2001
Subject: [CO-CURE] RES: Neuropsychological function in patients with CFS,
Folder: /home/cnorman/inbox 3125
I don't know what that final # means. There's a different one on every
entry. The log records the same info for every entry; the fact that it
shows from and subject above is not an indication of what it used to
filter.
> I run Spambouncer but it did not add any headers to the failed message so
> it was not a factor (it always adds a header when it comes into play with
> an email).
Spambouncer, if properly configured, will add at least two headers to ALL
messages that get that far: "X-SpamBouncer: Version (Date)" and "X-SBClass:
String" where "String" will normally be "OK" for messages that passed the
bouncer. If you're not getting these headers, than something in your
.procmailrc is catching these messages before spambouncer is invoked.
Exactly.
Thanks,
Cyndi
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
"There's nothing wrong with me. Maybe there's Cyndi Norman
something wrong with the universe." (ST:TNG)
cyndi(_at_)consultclarity(_dot_)com
http://www.tikvah.com/
_________________ Owner of the Immune Website & Lists http://www.immuneweb.org/
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail