On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 09:46:17AM -0500, David W. Tamkin wrote:
Don had,
:0cw:
* !^X-Loop: xloop(_at_)mydom(_dot_)com
* ^Subject:.*ABCD dead_letter
* ^To:(_dot_)*admin(_at_)mydom(_dot_)com
| formail -k -X "From:" -X "Subject:" \
-I "To: bhopkins, sharon, alan, mark, veronica,
ctaylor(_at_)anotherdom(_dot_)net" \
-X "To:" \
-I "X-Loop: xloop(_at_)mydom(_dot_)com" -X "X-Loop:" \
| $SENDMAIL -oi -t
and Dallman told him,
thing all about? I hadn't looked specifically at that before. What
are you after with that? It may be that you are -- yes, look (5-second
experiment):
% formail -I "X-Loop: xloop(_at_)mydom(_dot_)com" -X "X-Loop:" < SPAMPLE
X-Loop: xloop(_at_)mydom(_dot_)com
So of course the message disappears -- all you're piping to sendmail is
the one X-Loop: header-line!
Er, no, because Don is invoking formail with the -k option. Dallman,
you didn't usve -k in your test.
You're right.
That wasn't the explanation.
Well, it still seems to be the explanation, just via a slightly
different angle than I was thinking. That's because
formail -k -I "X-Loop: something"
doesn't work; it errors out.
formail -k -I "X-Loop: xloop(_at_)mydom(_dot_)com" < SPAMPLE
Usage: formail [-vbczfrktqY] [-D nnn idcache] [-p prefix] [-l folder]
[-xXaAiIuU field] [-R ofield nfield]
Or: formail [+nnn] [-nnn] [-bczfrktedqBY] [-D nnn idcache] [-p prefix]
[-n [nnn]] [-m nnn] [-l folder] [-xXaAiIuU field] [-R ofield nfield]
-s [prg [arg ...]]
Without the -k, the formail stuff works fine. And without the
-I and X-Loop, it also works -- though I don't really think Don
wants the -k option to formail.
One other problem: Don's recipe asks for a local lockfile without
specifying a name and without giving procmail anything to infer a name from.
Yes, I don't see why he would want any lockfile at all. Nor the -k option.
--
dman
____________________________________________________________
procmail mailing list Procmail homepage: http://www.procmail.org/
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail