(For those who don't remember the thread and don't keep old list
mail, see:
http://mailman.rwth-aachen.de/pipermail/procmail/2005-August/022973.html
The basic problem being how to mark IMAP messages as READ when using
MAILDIR)
I have figured out at least a possible workaround for this. It's a
little hackish, but I'd like folks' opinion of this idea.
The filenames have a set format, but the format does not have to be
followed.(see footnote1) If you can GUARANTEE that the filename will
be unique, you can use whatever filename you want, it just HAS to end
with
:2,S
So I'm trying to think of the least CPU-intensive way to come up with
a a unique identifier. The best one I've come up with thus far is
"date '+%s'"
:0
* ^Sender: procmail-bounces(_at_)lists\(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen\(_dot_)DE
{
# if message is NOT from me, just file it as normal
:0
* ! ^From:(_dot_)*lists(_at_)tntluoma\(_dot_)com
$MAILDIR/.INBOX.Procmail/
# get exact time
TIMESTAMP=`date '+%s'`
# file directly as saved
:0
$MAILDIR/.INBOX.Procmail/cur/$TIMESTAMP:2,S
}
Of course this adds a level of complexity to each recipe... but it's
time spent once to update the .procmailrc and time saved each time I
don't open a mailbox thinking there is an unread message, only to
find out it was from me.
Anyone have any thoughts on this? Is there a better/easier way to
get a unique identifier?
TjL
ps - I am testing the above recipe with this message
footenote1:
I found this out when I had a HUGE folder of messages with a lot
of duplicates. I ssh'd to the server, cd to the appropriate
directory, and then issued this command:
for i in *
do
ID=`grep -i "^message-id: " "$i" |awk '{print $NF}' | tr -d '<|>'`
mv -vf "$i" "$ID"
done
which looked at each message, found the message-ID, and renamed the
file to the message-id (NOTE: if this had been a mission-critical
mailbox I would have used this:
for i in *
do
SUM=`md5sum $i | awk '{print $1}'`
mv -vf "$i" "$SUM"
done
which would have been more CPU intensive (I think) and would have
risked missing some duplicates if there was even a slight
difference. The Message-ID was effective, but it's possible (however
unlikely) that there might have been a way that the script could have
gotten confused, especially if there was a message with a lot of
Message-ID: lines. In this case there was little to no chance that
would happen, so it was safe for the purposes of this example.
____________________________________________________________
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