From: Bob George <mailings02(_at_)ttlexceeded(_dot_)com>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 12:00:59 -0500
To: procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
Subject: Re: Attachments getting tripped that should be passing.....?
Chris Wagner <ismgr(_at_)atchisonkansas(_dot_)net> wrote:
[...]
0 B
*^Content-Type: (application|audio)
*^.*name=.*.(vb[esx]|ws[hf]|c[ho]m|bat|cmd|hta|exe|lnk|pif|dll|scr|shs|zip)
! spambox-ismgr(_at_)atchisonkansas(_dot_)net
Does procmail look to meet both conditions in this recipe, or
will one qualify the message to it and then get dumped?
The reason I ask is that we have had many users try to email
information and files to users on the system and they have
been routed to the user's spambox, even when it didn't seem to
have any content that violated the recipe.
The 2nd rule looks like it might match all sorts of things with
"<anything>name=<anything>(vb[esx]|ws[hf]|c[ho]m|bat|cmd|hta|exe|lnk|pif|dll
|s> c
r|shs|zip)>. Wouldn't that match "My name=Pinheaded Zippy"? If so, any message
with an application-type attachment and that text would hit, no?
Do the messages all have attachments, and "name=" in the body at all? If so,
perhaps it's an overly broad regexp. I suspect that the false positives are
all
messages with attachments.
[...]
- Bob
Bob,
Thing is, I'm not procmail savvy, and I'm trying to read as much as I
can....
I'm hoping to refine the script so that I'll get fewer of those situations.
Do I need to escape the . before the file extension so that it would make
the rule more specific to the extension itself?
Chris
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail