On 6-Aug-2008, at 11:28, Professional Software Engineering wrote:
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
--
Ah we're lonely, we're romantic / and the cider's laced with acid /
and the Holy Spirit's crying, Where's the beef? / And the moon
is swimming naked
/ and the summer night is fragrant / with a mighty expectation o
/ relief
____________________________________________________________
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