procmail
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Plussed addresses & procmailrcs problem

2003-02-09 14:20:33
-----Original Message-----
From: PSE-L(_at_)mail(_dot_)professional(_dot_)org 
[mailto:PSE-L(_at_)mail(_dot_)professional(_dot_)org]
Sent: Monday, 10 February 2003 8:39 a.m.
To: procmail(_at_)Lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
Subject: Re: Plussed addresses & procmailrcs problem


 
Error messages are explained in 'man procmail'.

Read this before I posted (but thanks for the reminder).
 
After posting, realised it was something to do with the last line of each 
recipe.

After reading this, realised it was a fundamental botch up on my part again.

Will change them all to:

:0
* ^TO_rnrhill\+roland@
! roland

^TO_ will pick them up certain headers of your message 
contain references 
to the BCC'd address.  Your MTA (or your ISP's MTA, and 
fetchmail) may not 
be inserting those references.
 
I assume that I can get my MTA to add this, even though it is routed via my 
ISP? Sounds like I can, will do some work with postfix (or pick up on what you 
have detailed below).

 
You _could_ expand upon this to check the _Received_ headers, and for 
Delivered-To:

BIGTO="(^((Original-)?(Resent-)?(To|Cc|Bcc)|(X-Envelope\
|Apparently(-Resent)?|Delivered)-To):(.*[^-a-zA-Z0-9_.])?)"

(note that the continuation lines _MUST_NOT_ contain leading 
whitespaces, 
as they'll be interpreted literally, unlike within a 
continued _condition_ 
line in a recipe)

:0:
* $ ${BIGTO}youraddress
somemailbox.mbx

Note that the syntax for the macro isn't quite the same - procmail 
pre-defined "^TO_", and so it isn't invoked as a variable.  
To expand a 
variable as a regexp, you need the above condition syntax.

To expand that to catch the possible appearance of your 
address within the 
Received: header, try:

:0:
* $ (${BIGTO}|^Received:.*for\>+<?)youraddress
somemailbox.mbx

That should be pretty serviceable.  As I said, there are 
issues doing what 
you're trying to do with one POP mailbox.  

I am definitely getting separate email accounts, which will solve all these 
problems. I could have let these issues go, but once I got started I wanted to 
complete the exercise. It has given me a far better understanding of my mail 
system, of which procmail is a part of.
 
You should check out the disclaimer link that is in my .sig 
-- from there, 
you'll find some information on my procmail 'sandbox' recipe 
testing setup, 
which will dramatically improve your ability to self-diagnose 
scripts, and 
test most things without subjecting your live email to the mix.

Will do .........so far I haven't "lost" any of the wife's mail.........which 
is a good thing....trust me!


---
  Sean B. Straw / Professional Software Engineering


As per usual, you patience is appreciated.

Regards,

Roland Hill

#####################################################################################
This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared 
by MailMarshal
For more information please visit www.marshalsoftware.com
#####################################################################################

_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>