At 10:06 2002-06-20 +0200, Ruud H.G. van Tol did say:
| :0
| * ^To:.*postmaster@
| * ^Cc:(_dot_)*postmaster(_at_)(_dot_)*postmaster@.*postmaster@
| ! spam42
You should review the request again - this doesn't do anything to address
the "or other "samename" addresses" part of the request, whereas the
already provided recipes would be more versatile and robust by evaluating
the To: and Cc: headers together and/or matching a given username. This
would also fail to match regardless of how many postmasters might have been
present in ONE header, if BOTH headers weren't found to be present (or both
didn't contain at least the indicated number of matches - you could have 20
postmaster recipients in To:, but if there's only two in the Cc:, this
won't match).
I took the numbers presented in the original request as a "for instance"
match count, not an absolute. Nothing subsequently posted would contradict
this assumption.
(BTW your subject rewrite thing is creeping into posts sent to the list)
---
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