At 12:40 2005-10-21 -0500, Christopher L. Barnard wrote:
I think I'll refrain from commenting here, because you are clearly in too
foul of a mood. You are subscribed to the wrong lists. The closest to a
free-for-all with no standards to be civil is, well, this list.
Whoa, for pointing out how many lists have dropped into protocol
free-for-alls, I'm considered to be in a foul mood? Where did that come
from? Seems as if you're upset because I pointed out that your invocation
of fgrep is broken.
[snip - cc to prev poster]
Yes. And since procmail is useful for those sorts of duplicates, it is
safe to assume that if someone does not want two copies they will have the
rules in place. Since a good sized mailing list can take hours to
propogate whereas an individual email is very fast, it is polite to
respond to the sender. If that individual does not want duplicates, he or
she will filter out the duplicate.
That might be the case when the person you're endowing with an extra copy
was looking for assistance, but that's not the case - you're cc'ing someone
who had previously replied to you: 21 hours prior to your reply, in
fact. The concern for rapid posting MIGHT make sense when you're rattling
off a chat-like email exchange, but when nearly an entire day elapses
between a post and the reply, I doubt a handful of minutes is going to make
much of a difference to anyone. Seeing as people are in diverse time zones
(not to mention have lives outside of email lists), one can have little
expectation that getting an extra copy into someones inbox five minutes (or
even an hour) sooner than the discussion list does means that they'll see
it any sooner. When someone actually desires that sort of response, they
can explicitly ask for it: "I'm in a real bind here, so if possible, please
CC: me on replies."
As to the ability to filter dupe crap: I doubt that just because the users
of this list have procmail at their disposal that any of them would welcome
more spam just because they have the ability to filter it.
More often, unnecessary cc's are the result of people using [REPLY ALL] and
firing off their replies without taking a moment to trim to context or
verify that the recipients are appropriate to the message. Users who cc
EVERYTHING degrade the utility of the occasional meaningful cc (I for
instance flag meassages bearing my address to "bubble to the top" of my
priorities - it's very aggravating to find that it's just some dork
replying to a thread using a paint roller instead of a pen, and their reply
has _nothing_ to do with me specifically except that they replied to a post
I'd made on the discussion), just as those who flag posts as high priority
with impunity (some idjuts actually do this on ALL their email!) degrade
the utility of that facility.
If you're experiencing big delays in message delivery, you might inspect
the headers of your messages as posted through the list (and back to
you). Lists can be expected to add several hops to mail processing (four
or five is quite typical, aachen does some mail filtering on different
hosts, so it's up around 8). Your ISP though passed your post through
about 7 or 8 hops just to get it to the list host - several cbot.com, and
several mailwatch.com. I expect your INBOUND mail might take a similar
number of hops on the return trip (inbound mail typically being subject to
more filtering than outbound). With all those added hops, I'm mildly
surprised you don't receive a pile of "hop count exceeded" bounces from
time to time, or see mail dissappear into the ether.
In my attempt to be brief I deleted the wrong line. The From: was
"another user" <user(_at_)CBOT(_dot_)COM>. My fault.
Which, as per the fgrep invocation you're using, won't match.
Er, you should read this mailing list. My use of -e here is to solve
another problem that I was having with my greenlist and was explicitly
suggested by another user on this list.
Hey, I'm just offering up an answer for why your recipe isn't functioning
properly. It appeared you were having troubles and were posting looking
for an explanation as to what might be going wrong. If you want to pass
the buck to someone else who ALSO didn't read the (f)grep manpage, fine -
but that doesn't change the fact that your invocation of fgrep is
flawed. Your recipe won't fix itself if you sit there stammering that
someone else showed you the syntax you're using.
If you insist that the fgrep invocation is fine, then perhaps you're using
an obscure fgrep - such as the one from the *nix port for the ColecoVision
game console. If that is the case, perhaps you're getting a program
failure because the shell ran out of memory on the Tank Battle game
cartridge while trying to invoke fgrep.
---
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 homepage: http://www.procmail.org/
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail