Jeff Orrok [mailto:jeff(_at_)rt(_dot_)com] wrote:
[Dallman quoted `man formail']:
-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.
I did see this bit. What I didn't see was a simple sentence declaring
that -x/X-ing fields will nullify -i/I/a/A'ed fields that aren't also
-x/X'ed. The universe is much closer to heat death than it
need be due to that missing sentence.
Yeah, maybe so. :) What is there is a reference to formail's doing,
well,
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.
It would seem smarter, yeah, in a human sense of smart, for formail
to "know" that -X doesn't mean for what we've just -A'd. But if
the thinking is, let's just proceed linearly, then it kind of still
makes sense as it works (at least to me; but I may be weird).
Btw, I'm not entirely clear on your stated results. I just tried
:0 hfw
| formail -iX-Loop -XX-
and it didn't act on X-Loop, but did on all other X-headers.
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.
Why did you include this part? Have I been bouncing digests or posts
back to the list? Or are you still unhappy about having to
deal with my autoresponder because you CC'ed me? As I said before,
once my autoresponder stops barfing into my .maillog, I'll contemplate
a recipe that deals with CC's to me and mailing lists. If you have a
proposal, please share it.
No, no, neither issue. I didn't study your reply mechanism all that
closely. But I did take stock of the fact that you were doing an
auto-reply of some type via formail; and didn't want you to end up
biting yourself in the arse needlessly.
I'm still unsure of what you mean by "barfing into [your] .maillog."
If you just don't want to see all the messages in the log, you can
temporarily set LOGABSTRACT to off.
As for what I do, well, I don't auto-ack now. I did do so for about
three or four years, actually. You have a different circumstance,
though, so my own habits don't really apply. But as for lists, I pull
out lists early. Something Cc'd to me and this list that's still
there after that is not the list mail, but the Cc:. It won't have,
e.g., the X-Beenthere: header. I do have a condition that checks
for procmail stuff thereafter, because it's a list I'm pretty active
on and I do get a lot of such stuff; and I don't want to send it
through my spam traps without a boost, since there are many readers
here with servers that emit "funny two-letter country codes" that my
traps otherwise don't much like. :-) So I use this for the aforesaid
score boost:
* 2^0 ^(To|Cc):.*\<procmail(-users)?@(lists|procmail)\.
I could just as well send the procmail stuff to my spool right at this
point. (Remember, it's not the list copy, which has already been
saved to a file on my system; but anything Cc'd.) But, well, I
suppose I don't want to trust this list *that* much. If the mail
can't get through my spam traps with a boost of 2 to its score,
it might, indeed, be spam.
Dallman
--
"Weltbedenkend, örtlich lenkend!"
-- Original von Dallman Ross
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail