Re: Duplicates sent from lists

At 09:47 2004-02-17 -0700, LuKreme wrote:

> the recipes in it are completely transparent.  I should cache the 
> list-post/reply addresses of the lists somewhere and then grep on ^TO_ ?
I had considered suggesting that, but it seems like a lot of work.  Plus, 
there's that nasty gotcha: you uns*bscribe from a list, and receive a 
message from someone who cc:'s you on that list.  What happens?  The cache 
(unless periodically flushed) identifies the listaddr, and the offlist copy 
gets trashed.
Of course, the same thing would happen with someone using a hardcoded 
recipe for the list who doesn't remove the recipe when they uns*bscribe.
> Once LISTNAME is generated I do have a INCLUDERC on my list subscription 
> address (this one) to do things like add Reply-To: LIST headers to lists 
> that don't have them, or mark messages to a list I archive as already read 
> (unless my domain appears in the References)
Or In-Reply-To:.  This is a good technique - Dallman could probably utilize 
it for replicating "offlistable" copies.  There's still the matter of 
braindead mailers that don't provide such tracking info, or where the user 
composes a new message rather than a Reply.
> , but this is OK because I am willing to take special action for those 
> very few lists since they are lists I read the most (this one, for 
> example).  In short, I don't mind having specific recipes for specific 
> lists, but trying to write a generic recipe that affects all my lists and 
> yet has to refer to each list specifically... well, that seems wrong.
List-Post:, where present, could be used to discern the list address 
associated with a given list.  The $LISTNAME variable could itself probably 
be used in a MATCH construct to isolate the list address in 98% or more of 
the cases (its those remaining 2% that pose a problem), allowing you to 
construct a flat greppable LISTNAME:listaddress file for a cache of sorts.
If you identify a list message, then determine you don't have an address 
for that list in the cache file, you'd do the additional operations to grab 
that address from the message (assuming it appears), then tack that 
LISTNAME and the list address onto the end of your cache file (using the 
lockfile utility which is included with the procmail distribution).  A 
little bit of shell scripting, and you could churn out a conversion to a 
procmail includeable expression, which means you eliminate grepping or any 
external processes excepting when you actually discern a list that needs 
adding to the file.
I recall one or more people have considered using a script-built rcfile for 
greenlists or blacklists (to avoid the grep overhead).
> I think the only solution I see without a COMMON_LISTS_OF_MINE sort of 
> solution is something like this:
> [ LISTNAME stuff up here ]
>
> :0
> * LISTNAME ?? ^^^^
> * -1
> * 1^1 ^TO@
> {
>   :0 fw
>   | formail -I"Status: RO"
>
>   :0:
>   dupemail
> }
Hmm, this looks like it'd catch everything addressed to two or more 
addresses, such as personal correspondance between small groups of people 
(or heck, even where the sender copies themselves).  It'd work passably 
well if you're using a list-specific address (which would need to have been 
conditioned prior to this individual recipe, since there's no condition 
listed here for a given address).
---
 Sean B. Straw / Professional Software Engineering

 Procmail disclaimer: <http://www.professional.org/procmail/disclaimer.html>
 Please DO NOT carbon me on list replies.  I'll get my copy from the list.


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