At 22:08 2002-01-16 +0000, Martin McCarthy did say:
:0:
* ^((Apparently-)?To|Cc|Bcc|X-Envelope):.*(,|(^.+)*\
^((Apparently-)?To|Cc|Bcc|X-Envelope):)
multiples
Unless you know otherwise, I'd pare it down further -- remove both
occurrences of (Apparrently-)? as well as Bcc and X-Envelope from that
expression - there is no reason you should see multiple addresses in those
fields - if you do, it's more likely due to a bug in your MTA. Further,
whenever you receive a legit bcc of something, this will trip.
Though, if you've ever had a message arrive which would have matched these
criteria, then by all means, include them.
:0:
* ^(To|Cc):.*(,|(^.+)*(To|Cc):)
multiples
I have my servers configured to add X-Envelope-To: (not X-Envelope:) - are
you sure you want to be matching for X-Envelope? If you pared that down
from ^TO/^TO_, you should review the regexp in 'man procmailrc', because
that definatley has a trailing '-To', so should be handled similarly to the
'Apparently-' above.
A standard To: me would trip this if I received a message checking for
X-Envelope-To as well. Or, if I'm bcc'd, I'd expect perhaps to have
X-Envelope-To: in addition to perhaps an Apparently-To, and probably a To:
"undisclosed recipients" (doesn't OutBreak use that if you bcc only?)
So, we're going to use about 2 billion machine cycles to figure out how to
strip 200 cycles from each of the next 10 million messages you receive
(those which actually reach that point in your rules at least). <g>
---
Sean B. Straw / Professional Software Engineering
Procmail disclaimer: <http://www.professional.org/procmail/disclaimer.html>
Please DO NOT carbon me on list replies. I'll get my copy from the list.
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail