At 10:02 2008-06-05 +0100, Eduardo Luís wrote:
[snippety]
Variable REPLYTO_ is allways foo(_at_)bar
Q: is there a Reply-To: HEADER in these messages to begin with?
Both of the recipes you show, which are rather antiquated, rely upon the
Reply-To: header actually being present. Save a message to a file and do
the following:
egrep "^Reply-To:" testmessage
and
formail -cXReply-To: < testmessage
in both cases, unless there IS a Reply-To header present, the output will
be empty. Which means, right off the bat, the REST of pipelines above will
be operating based on an empty input. formail uses foo(_at_)bar to represent
"what the hell, I need to return an address token, and this one should
raise some eyebrows".
Try:
# Here we have to call shell.... -rt will parse return address
# according to RFC rules. Note we only process HEADER.
:0 h
SENDER=|formail -b -rtzxTo:
Note how much simpler that is?
---
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