On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 12:59:16PM -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> on Tue, Apr 09, 2002, Matijs van Zuijlen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 03:50:54AM -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > > :0:
> > > * ^X-Mailing-List: <\/[^@<>]+
> > > $LISTDIR/$MATCH/
> >
> > As ha
Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dave Sherohman, 2002-Apr-08 16:14 -0500:
> > On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 06:35:58PM +0100, Paul Sargent wrote:
> > > I'm getting quite a lot of messages dropping through my procmail rules for
> > > debian lists. I was won
Dave Sherohman, 2002-Apr-08 16:14 -0500:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 06:35:58PM +0100, Paul Sargent wrote:
> > I'm getting quite a lot of messages dropping through my procmail rules for
> > debian lists. I was wondering if anyone here had a good setup.
> >
> > The
on Tue, Apr 09, 2002, Matijs van Zuijlen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 03:50:54AM -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > :0:
> > * ^X-Mailing-List: <\/[^@<>]+
> > $LISTDIR/$MATCH/
>
> As has been noted[1] in another thread on the same subject on
> debian-devel: this i
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 03:50:54AM -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> :0:
> * ^X-Mailing-List: <\/[^@<>]+
> $LISTDIR/$MATCH/
As has been noted[1] in another thread on the same subject on
debian-devel: this is dangerous. Someone could just send an email with
X-Mailing-List: <../someth
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 11:30:37AM +0100, Paul Sargent wrote:
| On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 05:33:57PM -0500, dman wrote:
|
| > All messages which are delivered by the list software do have that
| > header (unless something is really broken there). Were the missed
| > messages Cc'ed to you?
|
| Nope
begin Karsten M. Self quotation:
>
> # --
> # Mailing list rules (Filched from Nick Moffitt)
Under the "GTFOML" license, no doubt.
--
Shawn McMahon| Information may want to be free, but fiber
http:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 04:14:07PM -0500, Dave Sherohman wrote:
> Maybe you
> just need to modify the regexes you're matching against
> X-Mailing-List to be a little less demanding, although I would expect
> that header to be set identically on every message...
Yeah, so would I, I'm wondering if s
on Tue, Apr 09, 2002, Paul Sargent ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 05:33:57PM -0500, dman wrote:
>
> > All messages which are delivered by the list software do have that
> > header (unless something is really broken there). Were the missed
> > messages Cc'ed to you?
>
> Nope
on Mon, Apr 08, 2002, Paul Sargent ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Hi People,
>
> I'm getting quite a lot of messages dropping through my procmail rules for
> debian lists. I was wondering if anyone here had a good setup.
>
> The problem seems to be that not all mails from th
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 05:33:57PM -0500, dman wrote:
> All messages which are delivered by the list software do have that
> header (unless something is really broken there). Were the missed
> messages Cc'ed to you?
Nope, here's an example of one of the 5 or 6 that missed my rule last night.
>F
On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 01:46:14 PDT, Harry Putnam writes:
>> I'm getting quite a lot of messages dropping through my procmail rules for
>> debian lists. I was wondering if anyone here had a good setup.
>>
>> The problem seems to be that not all mails from this list get
Paul Sargent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi People,
>
> I'm getting quite a lot of messages dropping through my procmail rules for
> debian lists. I was wondering if anyone here had a good setup.
>
> The problem seems to be that not all mails from this list get
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 06:35:58PM +0100, Paul Sargent wrote:
> I'm getting quite a lot of messages dropping through my procmail rules for
> debian lists. I was wondering if anyone here had a good setup.
From the procmailrc(5) man page:
If the regular expression contains `^TO_&
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 06:35:58PM +0100, Paul Sargent wrote:
> I'm getting quite a lot of messages dropping through my procmail rules for
> debian lists. I was wondering if anyone here had a good setup.
>
> The problem seems to be that not all mails from this list get tagged
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 06:35:58PM +0100, Paul Sargent wrote:
| Hi People,
|
| I'm getting quite a lot of messages dropping through my procmail rules for
| debian lists. I was wondering if anyone here had a good setup.
|
| The problem seems to be that not all mails from this list get tagged
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 06:35:58PM +0100, Paul Sargent wrote:
> * ^X-Mailing-List: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * ^X-Mailing-List: $DEBIAN/$MATCH
I use Resent-From from mail headers and works fine
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 06:35:58PM +0100, Paul Sargent wrote:
> Hi People,
...
> The problem seems to be that not all mails from this list get tagged with
> X-Mailing-List which is what I'm checking on.
>
> This is my current rule:
>
> :0:
> * ^X-Mailing-List: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * ^X-Mailing-L
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 06:35:58PM +0100, Paul Sargent wrote:
> I'm getting quite a lot of messages dropping through my procmail rules for
> debian lists. I was wondering if anyone here had a good setup.
>
> The problem seems to be that not all mails from this list get tagged
My rule is much simpler since I only subscribe to debian-user, but I use:
:0
* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| $RCVSTORE +Debian -unseen
(I also use 'nmh', hence the pipe to rcvstore). My advice is to check on the
TO_ lines rather than X-Mailing-List.
--
Hi People,
I'm getting quite a lot of messages dropping through my procmail rules for
debian lists. I was wondering if anyone here had a good setup.
The problem seems to be that not all mails from this list get tagged with
X-Mailing-List which is what I'm checking on.
This is my cu
21 matches
Mail list logo
