On Mon, 12 Apr 2010, Professional Software Engineering wrote:
There is no guarantee that the sender's envelope is actually the same as
the "From:" header. And there isn't even any guarantee that the envelope
sender is a 'From' line. On my postfix it is 'Return-Path'....
As the OP is using the From_, not From: and getting results, it is clear
their MTA is producing a From_ when passing the messages to the LDA.
Okay, I'm *really* regretting having 'snipped' so much of the OP's
message. I could have *sworn* that the original post had a colon (From:).
I mean, that's the FIRST elementary mistake to check for..... :)
Perhaps the OP 'retyped' his rule into his post, rather than quote it from
the procmailrc file? Mind you, that makes me wonder how 'From ' managed
to match on his tests..... :)
I'm not debating that your observation of QP is correct - it's just that
I haven't seen it myself.
Perhaps procmail is kind enough to decode before running headers through
its recipes. But this 'bug' makes a real mystery of similarly 'failed'
spamassassin rule checks.... The synptoms (with a ':') are identical.
-C
____________________________________________________________
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