On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 12:11:05AM +0000, MindFuq wrote:
I get mail such that my address ends up in an Envelope-To field, and
can't capture the message using a TO_ expression because it only looks
for X-Envelope-To. I'm not sure what to make of the "X-", but it
looks like I'll have to write a specific condition for Envelope-To in
cases where I need it, or perhaps, for every recipe.
Strictly speaking, neither Envelope-To nor X-Envelope-To are required
headers. The only headers that really *need* to be supported are ones
specified in RFC2822. Anything else (like support for X-Envelope-To) is
merely adherance to accepted non-standard practices.
The "X-" prefix was adopted by many software packages that wanted to
re-write legitimate headers but hold on to the old data somewhere.
Both Envelope-To and X-Envelope-To would be considered "optional" fields
according to the standard.
The reason I ask is that this seems like an oversight on the part of
the developers, and TO_ should really include a (X-)?Envelope
expression.
If use of Envelope-To (without the "X-") is widespread, it would likely
be a good idea to support it in procmail. This is the first I've heard
of it though, so if you could tell us what's actually *creating* these
headers, that would be nifty.
--
Paul Chvostek
<paul(_at_)it(_dot_)ca>
Operations / Abuse / Whatever +1 416 598-0000
it.canada - hosting and development http://www.it.ca/
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail