At 14:01 2008-08-05 -0400, Jake Di Toro wrote:
I've had some recent changes to my mail handling and wanted to
streamline some more. Dug through the archives for the mailing list
handlers and came up with this as the latest:
http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/procmail/2007-11/msg00028.html
It should be noted that while there is a line comment near the top of the
recipe that says "Sean wrote this", the entirety of that modified recipe
wasn't written by me, and what was, has been considerably modified. My
code is at:
<http://www.professional.org/procmail/listname_id.rc>
(which, as of this writing, I haven't needed to touch in over 4 years -
both the copy on the website, as well as the identical one that is in
production)
At the "save all list messages into a directory named"... comment line, it's
code beyond merely identifying the name of the list, and isn't part of the
intent of my original recipe. I compartmentalized the recipe to just
identifying a name for the list, since that can later be used to skip spam
checking, do custom filing, or whatever. If someone wants to auto-file,
they can includerc the id recipe, and then act upon the LISTNAME variable.
There are differences in the order and content of the conditions in the
recipe you linked to as versus my original. Toggling of VERBOSE logging on
and off around one part is consistent with someone tweaking to see what is
happening in part of the recipe, and isn't part of my original either. I
don't have the time right now to examine them and run a saved email corpus
against them to determine how they interract (though my original still
identifies the many lists to which I am subscribed).
This is NEW to the conditions:
* 9876543210^0 ^(List-Id:.*<|X-Mailing-List:[ ]*)\/[-A-z0-9_+]+
These may be headers FOUND on some list messages, but I think you'd be hard
pressed to find messages which have these headers but DO NOT have the others.
The fallback recipe presented in the message you linked to is also very
different from my original, and without running it against a corpus, I
couldn't say whether it is any more or less effective. The original merely
removed -owner from the address found in the sender, while this other one
uses List-Subscribe (which itself is part of the RFC-2919 spec, and if
present, should mean that the FIRST recipe should have easily matched
something).
---
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