Re: Procmail recipe for Nitwit unsubscribers who can't read DU sigs.
Incoming from Matthew Whitworth:
> s. keeling wrote:
>
> >:0 HB
> >* 1^0 ()(I will be out of the office|I will respond to your message when I
> >return\.)
> >* 1^0 ^Subject:.*(un)?su(b)?(s)?cribe
> >* 1^0 $ ^^${SPCNL}*(un)?su(b)?scribe
> >* -1^0 ^Subject:.*Re:
> >{
> > LOG="(Un)?[twits] - "
> > :0
> > /dev/null
> >}
>
> Don't pipe to /dev/null just yet -- I've had five false positives since
> implementing it this morning!
>
> I can provide procmail log entries (although not the actual emails -- I
> /dev/null-ed prematurely) if you'd like. I'm going to leave the filter
> in place, but pipe them to a folder instead so that I can debug.
/dev/null is just the most satisfying place to consign them, not
necessarily the right place. I assumed anyone wanting to use it would
think before they implemented it. :-)
For instance, that "[twits]" in the LOG variable replaces what was
there before, else this message too would produce a false positive.
Then again, that may be wishful thinking and this may just be
hopelessly recursive and is doomed forever to fall into my spambin.
Other points:
- we don't see messages on the list asking to be
subscribed; they're not yet on the list so they can't post.
- the variable SPCNL above is made up of:
WSPC = " "
SPC = "[$WSPC]"
SPCNL = "($SPC|$)"
where WSPC is a space character plus a <TAB> character (in vi(m)?
type CTRL-V<TAB>, and in emacs type CTRL-q<TAB>).
I don't know where I got the latter from originally, but Timo Salmi
would be a good place to start for things like this.
--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(*) http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling
- -
Reply to: