Hi
Am Sonntag, 29. September 2002 20:40 schrieb Dallman Ross:
Okay, now let's test your list and respond accordingly:
:0 hc: # I see no reason for the W or w flags, so left them out
* $ ! ? grep -qsx '$MSGID' .falscheReplies
| echo $MSGID >> .falscheReplies
Now things really clear up.
Wrongly I thought I can use "w" or "W" as a flag and then exit code of
the next pipe to match or not. So, I always had two action lines. The
first one was inteded to be used as test :
I have to use "* ? ......." to do this. Reading the manpage exactly
might have helped also :-)
Now things are working. I can start going on to make the setup.
Well, let's see: the two main MUAs I use are Berkeley Mail
(mailx.att) under NetBSD and Outlook 10 under Win XP. Neither one
natively inserts such a header when I reply to your mail.
??? Your mail is written with outlook and it contaiuns an "In-Reply-To:"
So everything is fine even if I use these recipes.
In Berkeley
Mail, I could manually add one if I felt so inclined. Not sure what
you'd want me to add, however. :)
No...
I don't want to add you. I don't even want to use these recipes on this
mailing list.
I am subscribed to a mailing list with more than 200 mails per day.
Threading is really essential there. And the vast majority uses mailers
capable of using "In-Reply-To:" or "References:". The special problem
there is that "wrong" replies lead to several mails complaining about
this. And then poeple are complaining about the complaints......
These recipes will dump less then 20% of the mails (usually far less).
And there still will be more mail than I will read :-)
Thanks for your help
Axel
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail