Re: procmail, when were the last rights administered?
On Tuesday 07 March 2017 17:16:28 David Wright wrote:
> 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.
How to make this recipe pair send me an email when it trips.
# Scan for viruses
:0
VIRUS=|clamdscan --stdout -
:0w
* VIRUS ?? ^.*: \/.* FOUND
$VIRIBOX
That would be to "gene@localhost"
Thanks.
Cheers, Gene Heskett
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>
Reply to: