On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Tom Ainscough wrote:
TA> > Try this condition instead:
TA> >
TA> > * ^X-Spam-Flag:(.*\<)?YES
TA>
TA>
TA> From: Spam <spam(_at_)ainscough(_dot_)com>
TA> Date: Thu Jun 19, 2003 1:24:07 PM America/Chicago
TA> To: andrew(_at_)ainscough(_dot_)com
TA> Subject: Spam- SPAM TEST
TA> Received: from localhost [127.0.0.1] by server1.arteryserver1.net with
TA> SpamAssassin (2.53 1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp); Thu, 19 Jun 2003
TA> 18:24:15 +0000
TA> Message-Id: <36F1E1FA-A283-11D7-80F1-0003935804A4(_at_)ainscough(_dot_)com>
TA> X-Spam-Flag: YES
TA> .
TA> .
TA> .
TA>
TA>
TA> procmail: [7961] Thu Jun 19 18:24:15 2003
TA> procmail: No match on "^X-Spam-Flag:(.*\<)?YES"
TA>
TA> Weird.
TA>
I suspect that it is what you are not showing us ...
Are you sure the X-Spam-Flag had actually been inserted into the message
before the test?
Alan
( Please do not email me AS WELL as replying to the list. Please
address personal email to alan+1@ as lists@ is not read. A
password autoresponder may be invoked if this email is very old. )
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail