At 16:24 2002-03-22 -0700, Scott Palmer did say:
[snip]
Everything Philip said, plus:
:0
* ? formail -x"To" -x"To:" \
| egrep -is -f /etc/procrcs/receive.lst
| formail -A "X-NoFilter: Does not want filtering"
Since the ELSE rule after this is what invoked the filters which presumably
this recipe is defining as unwanted, this recipe doesn't need to do
anything - you could use a null body bracing, *OR* you could invert the
conditions (an exclamation before the ? on the condition line and use the
condition on the INCLUDERC rule, unless you have some dire need to have
this "X-NoFilter" header added when you can so easily just skip the filtering:
:0 E
* ! ? formail -x"To" -x"To:" \
| egrep -is -f /etc/procrcs/receive.lst
{ INCLUDERC=/etc/procrcs/ruleset.rc }
Also, rather than modifying the message, don't forget that you can set a
procmail VARIABLE, and check that elsewhere, which will save you the cost
of the external process (and leave the message unaltered):
:0 E
* ! ? formail -x"To" -x"To:" \
| egrep -is -f /etc/procrcs/receive.lst
{
NOFILTER=TRUE
}
then elsewhere:
:0
* ! $NOFILTER ?? TRUE
{ do something }
---
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