On 20 Nov, LuKreme wrote:
|
| On Wed, 20-Nov-2002, at 09:45:54 -0700, Don Hammond wrote:
|
| > On 19 Nov, LuKreme wrote:
| > | recipe:
| > | :0
| > | * ^List-Id:.*chat-l
| > | {
| > | :0bf
| > | # If the mailboddy contains [text Webjogger text] strip that line
| > | * \[.*Webjogger.*\]
| > | | sed -e '/\[.*Webjogger\]/d'
| > | }
| > | $MLDIR/\(Misc\)/Chat-l
| > |
|
| [...]
| >
| > Yeah, you forgot to start the recipe with ":0". It skipped the action
| > line because it's not really an action line since it's not part of a
| > valid recipe.
|
| Hrm... the {} are the action for the first :0. That seems to always
| cause me troubles.
|
| > :0
| > $MLDIR/\(Misc\)/Chat-l
| >
| > I would think you want that inside the braces too (or add an "A" flag
| > to
| > it). Otherwise every message that gets to that point in your rcfile
| > will be deposited in that folder, whether it matches List-Id:.*chat-l
| > or not.
|
| so:
|
| :o
| ^ List-ID:....
| {
| :0bf
| ...
|
| :0
| $MLDIR/...
| }
|
Yes, either that or:
:0
* ^List-ID:....
{
:0bf
...
}
:0A:
$MLDIR/...
Functionally they're the same, so it's a matter of taste I guess. Don't
forget the trailing colon to lock the file either way.
As for the {} braces being "the action line for the first :0", I've
never thought of it that way. But if you were expecting the first :0
to pair off with that dangling delivery, then I suppose that would be
one way to look at it. The procmailrc man page seems pretty lucid on
braces. Bring up the man page and search for "{" (i.e. /{ <enter> ).
--
Reply to list please, or append "8" to "procmail" in address if you must.
Spammers' unrelenting address harvesting forces me to this...reluctantly.
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail