Re: procmail, when were the last rights administered?
On Tue 07 Mar 2017 at 14:21:41 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 March 2017 11:16:55 David Wright wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
> Because the procmail web site has had a moving site message up since
> sometime in 2014?
>
> And I've been told repeatedly that "its dead Jim", try something else.
> But I'm with you folks, for me it Just Works(TM) but I've long since
> forgotten the how to write a new recipe part for it.
Yes, my last modification date for .procmailrc is 2004-03-30.
But that's what man procmailex is for, a 500-line file of
glossed recipes catering for different situations. With the
hints above, which part of the jigsaw are you missing?
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: