On 18 Feb 2004, at 16:33, David W. Tamkin wrote:
Dallman wrote,
I don't understand that comment. I just tried it with -I, and
it worked just the same for me.
:0:
* ? formail -IMessage-Id: -R List-Post: Message-Id: -D 1024
listpost.cache
incache
:0:
notincache
That's a surprise. I know that in the past,
formail -I header1: -R header2: header1:
would rename first and delete next, so that all occurrences of
header1: and all of header2: would be removed. I lamented that it
would be easier on human minds if formail processed its arguments in
command-line order, but Philip said that it simply could not make
multiple passes over the input, so that was impossible.
Where do we sand on this? Does the condition work for Dallman because
he has a bug-fixed build of procmail?
it LOOKS to my untrained eye like it is working correctly, but I hate
to be surprised.
--
There are strange things done in the midnight sun/By the men who moil
for gold;
The Arctic trails have their secret tales/That would make your blood
run cold;
The Northern Lights have seen queer sights,/But the queerest they ever
did see
Was the night on the marge of Lake lebarge/I cremated Sam McGee
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail