Jeff Orrok <jeff(_at_)rt(_dot_)com> claimed:
When I [use formail and] take the -X flags out (and keep the -A
flags), then the -A flags show up in the output, with a lot of other
header fields that I'm not particularly interested in. As far as I
can tell, the precedent for man pages is to indicate whether a flag is
overridden by, or supresses, subsequent flags. The formail man page
does not conform to this precedent. Intuition suggests that -X blah
removes all flags except blah, effectively cleaning up the header, and
then -A foo would add foo.
Since you are using the -r option, I want to make sure you saw these
bits from the man pages:
-r Generate an auto-reply header. This will normally
throw away all the existing fields (except X-Loop:)
in the original message, fields you wish to preserve
need to be named using the -i option. If you use
this option in conjunction with -k, you can prevent
the body from being `escaped' by also specifying -b.
And:
WARNINGS
You can save yourself and others a lot of grief if you try
to avoid using this autoreply feature on mails coming
through mailinglists. Depending on the format of the in
coming mail (which in turn depends on both the original
sender's mail agent and the mailinglist setup) formail
could decide to generate an autoreply header that replies
to the list.
In the tradition of UN*X utilities, formail will do exact
ly what you ask it to, even if it results in a non-RFC822
compliant message. [. . .]
Moreover, the examples given are more verbose than many Unix man
pages I've seen. I'll grant that some experimentation is in order.
It's a rare Unix program where that isn't the case, though, eh?
Have fun,
Dallman
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail