Re: procmail, when were the last rights administered?
On Tue 07 Mar 2017 at 09:43:17 (-0500), Henning Follmann wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 09:59:16PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Monday 06 March 2017 21:47:42 Andy Smith wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Gene,
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 09:29:37PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > And what replaces it in the MTA dept?
> > >
> > > procmail is still in Debian stretch and if it still works for you
> > > then it should continue to work for you.
> > >
> > I wanted to add a formail line but the docs do not seem to cover that
> > recipe. I want an email to gene@localhost when it sequesters a virii.
> >
> [...]
>
> What do you mean by "formail line"?
> formail is a command to pipe a mbox thru procmail.
Yes, but it's also used _by_ procmail during its processing.
For example, here's a standard procmailrc recipe for eliminating
messages with identical Message-IDs:
:0 Wh: $HOME/msgid.lock
| formail -D 199999 $HOME/msgid.cache
So Gene might be looking for a potted recipe for formail to do what he
wants, whatever he means by "sequesters a virii", and recipes with
formail in them might make good examples to hack at.
The obvious place to start is procmailex: insert the safety net; then
the example above shows the W code for checking the exit code of
formail/virus-scanner/whatever before proceeding, then the vacation
example would help with how to generate the desired email
notification depending on the exit code. Remember to add the c flag
so that the recipe is non-delivering: that means the actual (received)
email will always drop through to the next recipe. Otherwise, piping
through the virus-scanner might be interpreted as "delivery". After
testing remove the safety net if desired.
man procmail/procmailrc/procmailex/formail all work here on wheezy and
jessie, so I'm not sure why he felt the need to put Alternative Facts
into his Subject header.
Cheers,
David.
PS I dodged your bullet (mail-followup-to).
Reply to: