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
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 And
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 a
formail can also force correct formatting on incoming email. On Tue, 7 Mar
2017, Henning Follmann wrote:
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 09:43:17
From: Henning Follmann
To: Gene Heskett
Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: procmail, when were the last rights administered?
Resent-Date: Tue, 7
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 repla
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
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 09:29:37PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> And what replaces it in the MTA dept?
I still use procmail myself, but I do think about moving away one day.
If you are using Exim, and if your mail arrival route is via your Exim
(you mention fetchmail in follow-up email but I am no
On Monday 06 March 2017 21:54:26 Andy Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 02:47:42AM +, Andy Smith wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 09:29:37PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > And what replaces it in the MTA dept?
>
> Oh, and procmail is not an MTA (and neither is maildrop…), but more
> c
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 a
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 02:47:42AM +, Andy Smith wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 09:29:37PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > And what replaces it in the MTA dept?
Oh, and procmail is not an MTA (and neither is maildrop…), but more
correctly a Mail Delivery Agent, but I got what you meant.
Siev
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.
More modern alternatives include Sieve:
http://sieve.info/clients
and ma
Hi David
I did exactly as you said but still not working
with the line mailbox_command = procmai -a "$EXTENSION" in Postfix and the
configuration file in /etc/promailrc check this out
$ cat /etc/procmailrc
SHELL=/bin/bash
SENDMAIL="/usr/sbin/sendmail -oi -t"
LOGFILE=/var/log/procmail.log
MAI
co...@esid.gecgr.co.cu grabbed a keyboard and wrote:
> Hi
>
> Someone who has been running the procmail that could give a
> hand, there is no way that I work with postfix, I know I'm doing
> wrong.
>
> /etc/procmailrc? Because you must go to the configuration file?
Here is what is in my /etc/pro
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 11:14:57AM +0200, Jochen Spieker wrote:
> lee:
> >
> > I've looked at formail + procmail , but formail forces it into mailbox
> > format which I dont want.
>
> Formail doesn't actually save the mailboxes anywhere, procmail does
> that. And if you append a slash to the mail
On 07/05/2012 09:59 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
> lee wrote:
>> I've looked at formail + procmail , but formail forces it into mailbox
>> format which I dont want.
> With Maildir format you don't need formail. Just pipe each individual
> message to procmail.
>
> Of the top of my head and untested:
>
>
On 07/05/2012 02:41 PM, Jon Dowland wrote:
> You can run procmail in "filter mode" and pipe it each mail that you wish to
> filter individually, but you must keep track of which mails have been piped to
> procmail and remove them/mark them 'processed' yourself, via shell scripts
> etc.
>
> Make su
lee wrote:
> I've looked at formail + procmail , but formail forces it into mailbox
> format which I dont want.
With Maildir format you don't need formail. Just pipe each individual
message to procmail.
Of the top of my head and untested:
for m in Maildir/new/* Maildir/cur/*; do
procmail
You can run procmail in "filter mode" and pipe it each mail that you wish to
filter individually, but you must keep track of which mails have been piped to
procmail and remove them/mark them 'processed' yourself, via shell scripts etc.
Make sure your procmail recipe(s) deliver to a sensible locati
lee:
>
> I've looked at formail + procmail , but formail forces it into mailbox
> format which I dont want.
Formail doesn't actually save the mailboxes anywhere, procmail does
that. And if you append a slash to the mailbox name, procmail generates
maildirs. Example:
MAILDIR=$HOME/Maildir/
LOGFIL
On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 23:18:59 -0700, Bob Proulx wrote:
>> there were actually more piping commands between formail & $SENDMAIL in
>> my rcfile.
>
> Yes. But as noted that is incorrect. Only one action line is allowed
> there.
Hmm..., actually, it is correct. True, that there can only be exactly
T o n g wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> >> :0 Hfhwi
> >> * ^Subject: \/.*
> >> | formail -b -c -X From: -X To: -X Subject: -X Date: . . . |
> >> $SENDMAIL $SENDMAILFLAGS . . .
> >
> > You need to create another recipe for the second pipe.
> >
> > :0 Hfhwi
> > * ^Subject: \/.*
> > | for
T o n g wrote:
> :0 Hfhwi
> * ^Subject: \/.*
> | formail -b -c -X From: -X To: -X Subject: -X Date: . . .
> | $SENDMAIL $SENDMAILFLAGS . . .
You need to create another recipe for the second pipe.
:0 Hfhwi
* ^Subject: \/.*
| formail -b -c -X From: -X To: -X Subject: -X Date: . . .
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 03:40:24 +, T o n g wrote:
> # send header only
[ . . . ]
> I.e., having processed it, procmail went on with the following recipes
> instead of considering the mail delivered and cease processing the
> rcfile.
Hmm... looks like procmail considered the mail *header* de
T o n g wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > I think it is a bug in the \< expansion.
>
> OMG, I thought it would be very hard for anyone to find out the answer.
>
> THANKS A LOT. works like a charm.
That seems to be an okay workaround but it still looks like a bug.
Since I use procmail a lot it moti
T o n g wrote:
> I seems not able to get the word end boundary matching for procmail
> works. Here is my test rc file:
>
> :0 HB
> * 1^0 \
> * 1^0 test
> /dev/null
>
> and there is a ' test ' in my test email.
>
> However, from the dry run log, I can see that '\' did not match
> yet 'test' di
Hello Paul E Condon,
Am 2011-04-24 14:13:26, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> ## 'unreadable' mail
> :0:
> * 1^0
> ^\/Subject:.*=\?(.*big5|iso-2022-jp|ISO-2022-KR|euc-kr|gb2312|ks_c_5601-1987|windows-1251|windows-1256)\?
> * 1^0
> ^\/Content-Type:.*charset="(.*big5|iso-2022-jp|ISO-2022-KR|euc-k
On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 07:46:45 +0100, Stanisław Findeisen wrote:
> On 2010-10-29 10:39, Camaleón wrote:
>> Mmm, procmail is a delivery agent, it does not render the messages.
>>
>> What e-mail client are you using for displaying e-mails? I have not
>> problems with encoded subjects using rfc 2047,
On 2010-10-29 10:39, Camaleón wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 21:19:30 +0200, Stanisław Findeisen wrote:
>
>> Is there any support in Debian for Unicode e-mail header lines
>> processing, e.g. with procmail?
>>
>> Those header lines look like this:
>>
>> Subject: =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCNEE7eiROJTUlViU4J
Stanisław Findeisen wrote:
> >> Is there any support in Debian for Unicode e-mail header lines
> >> processing, e.g. with procmail?
> >> Subject: =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCNEE7eiROJTUlViU4JSclLyVIGyhC?=
> ...
> Hm I wrote this little script:
>
> http://people.eisenbits.com/~stf/software/conv2047/
>
> I
On 2010-10-29 21:35, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Stanisław Findeisen wrote:
>> Is there any support in Debian for Unicode e-mail header lines
>> processing, e.g. with procmail?
>> Subject: =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCNEE7eiROJTUlViU4JSclLyVIGyhC?=
>>
>> so they need to be decoded before doing anything useful with
Stanisław Findeisen wrote:
> Is there any support in Debian for Unicode e-mail header lines
> processing, e.g. with procmail?
> Subject: =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCNEE7eiROJTUlViU4JSclLyVIGyhC?=
>
> so they need to be decoded before doing anything useful with them. (See:
> http://www.debian.org/doc/manua
On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 21:19:30 +0200, Stanisław Findeisen wrote:
> Is there any support in Debian for Unicode e-mail header lines
> processing, e.g. with procmail?
>
> Those header lines look like this:
>
> Subject: =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCNEE7eiROJTUlViU4JSclLyVIGyhC?=
>
> so they need to be decoded
On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 02:30:06PM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
> You can invoke procmail by piping an email to it.
>
> find $LOCAL_MAIL_DIR -type f | while read mail; do procmail < "$mail"; done
That's it! Thank you very much!
Thank you Monique Y. Mudama and Chris Bannister for nice hints, too — no
On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 03:38:51PM +0300, Alexander Batischev wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've just installed fetchmail → procmail → mutt → msmtp chain and want
> to configure procmail properly. Of course, I can't write all the rules
> in the right way from scratch, so there must be some testing. The only
>
On Fri, May 7 at 15:38, Alexander Batischev penned:
> Hi,
>
> I've just installed fetchmail ??? procmail ??? mutt ??? msmtp chain
> and want to configure procmail properly. Of course, I can't write
> all the rules in the right way from scratch, so there must be some
> testing. The only way to che
On 07/05/10 13:38, Alexander Batischev wrote:
> So here is what I'm looking for: is there a way to run procmail on
> already downloaded messages? Maybe I should download them to separate
> directory and run procmail on it? Maybe I can just pass existing
> (already sorted) mail directory to procmail
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 05:51:49 -0400
Paul Cartwright wrote:
> On Tue August 25 2009, Micha wrote:
> > > what benefit would I get from procmail?
> >
> > 1. The ability to move from kmail to something else if you want without
> > rewriting your rules.
>
> good idea.. I like that, especially when test
On 2009-09-01 05:19, Paul Cartwright wrote:
On Tue September 1 2009, Ron Johnson wrote:
If your "person message store" is an mbox file, then I'd:
this is the part I can't figure out.. I don't have an mbox setup on kmail, I
don't see a way for it to read an mbox folder.. I tried to create an m
On Tue September 1 2009, Ron Johnson wrote:
> If your "person message store" is an mbox file, then I'd:
this is the part I can't figure out.. I don't have an mbox setup on kmail, I
don't see a way for it to read an mbox folder.. I tried to create an mbox
folder in an account, but I don't see any
On 2009-09-01 04:51, Paul Cartwright wrote:
[snip]
right now, on my system I have icedove, evolution, kmail, and claws, all setup
for my local user. procmail seems to move the mail into an mbox file, and I
haven't figured out how to get any email program to read an mbox folder.
But you see,
On 2009-09-01 04:45, Paul Cartwright wrote:
On Tue August 25 2009, Chris Jones wrote:
but looking at the procmailrc( now non-existant), then thinking about
my 200 kmail filters, I'm not sure I could tackle that task..
As another poster hinted, this is another example of the hidden benefits
of c
On Tue August 25 2009, Micha wrote:
> > what benefit would I get from procmail?
>
> 1. The ability to move from kmail to something else if you want without
> rewriting your rules.
good idea.. I like that, especially when testing different email programs.
> 2. The ability to pull mail without havi
On Tue August 25 2009, Chris Jones wrote:
> > but looking at the procmailrc( now non-existant), then thinking about
> > my 200 kmail filters, I'm not sure I could tackle that task..
>
> As another poster hinted, this is another example of the hidden benefits
> of cloning the Microsoft model.
I'm n
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:30:03 -0400
Chris Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:57:01PM EDT, Celejar wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:32:21 +0300
> > Micha wrote:
>
> > ...
>
> > > 3. Text file with regular expression based rules that you know where
> > > it resides and can back it up and
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:30:03AM -0400, Chris Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:57:01PM EDT, Celejar wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:32:21 +0300
> > Micha wrote:
>
> > ...
>
> > > 3. Text file with regular expression based rules that you know where
> > > it resides and can back it up
On 2009-08-25 23:30, Chris Jones wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:57:01PM EDT, Celejar wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:32:21 +0300
Micha wrote:
...
3. Text file with regular expression based rules that you know where
it resides and can back it up and human read it
As the resident Sylphe
On Tue, Aug 25 2009, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Mon,24.Aug.09, 20:56:27, Paul Cartwright wrote:
>
>> but looking at the procmailrc( now non-existant), then thinking about my 200
>> kmail filters, I'm not sure I could tackle that task..
>
> maildir (and procmail too as I hear, but I don't like its
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:57:01PM EDT, Celejar wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:32:21 +0300
> Micha wrote:
> ...
> > 3. Text file with regular expression based rules that you know where
> > it resides and can back it up and human read it
> As the resident Sylpheed fanboy, I must point out that
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:44:57 +0300
Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Ma,25.aug.09, 13:32:21, Micha wrote:
>
> > On the downside, if you want to explicitly pull mail now, pulling
> > mail from kmail doesn't pull the mail off your accounts, you need to
> > do that explicitly from the command line
>
> N
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:32:21 +0300
Micha wrote:
> On 8/24/2009 11:34 PM, Paul Cartwright wrote:
> > On Mon August 24 2009, Micha wrote:
> >> Personally I use fetchmail + procmail to fetch and filter my mail
> >
> > I use fetchmail to pull in my mail for all my domain accounts. Kmail pulls
> > it
On 2009-08-25 18:29, Chris Jones wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 03:02:44PM EDT, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 2009-08-25 13:55, Chris Jones wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 08:56:27PM EDT, Paul Cartwright wrote:
[..]
but looking at the procmailrc( now non-existant), then thinking
about my 200 kmail f
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 03:02:44PM EDT, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 2009-08-25 13:55, Chris Jones wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 08:56:27PM EDT, Paul Cartwright wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>>> but looking at the procmailrc( now non-existant), then thinking
>>> about my 200 kmail filters, I'm not sure I could
On 2009-08-25 13:55, Chris Jones wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 08:56:27PM EDT, Paul Cartwright wrote:
[..]
but looking at the procmailrc( now non-existant), then thinking about
my 200 kmail filters, I'm not sure I could tackle that task..
As another poster hinted, this is another example of
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 08:56:27PM EDT, Paul Cartwright wrote:
[..]
> but looking at the procmailrc( now non-existant), then thinking about
> my 200 kmail filters, I'm not sure I could tackle that task..
As another poster hinted, this is another example of the hidden benefits
of cloning the Micr
On Ma,25.aug.09, 13:32:21, Micha wrote:
> On the downside, if you want to explicitly pull mail now, pulling
> mail from kmail doesn't pull the mail off your accounts, you need to
> do that explicitly from the command line
Not very familiar with kmail, but claws-mail (sylpheed too?) has
configur
On 8/24/2009 11:34 PM, Paul Cartwright wrote:
On Mon August 24 2009, Micha wrote:
Personally I use fetchmail + procmail to fetch and filter my mail
I use fetchmail to pull in my mail for all my domain accounts. Kmail pulls it
all in via my local user. From there I have many, MANY filters to pu
On Mon,24.Aug.09, 20:56:27, Paul Cartwright wrote:
> but looking at the procmailrc( now non-existant), then thinking about my 200
> kmail filters, I'm not sure I could tackle that task..
maildir (and procmail too as I hear, but I don't like its syntax) is
*very* powerful. I recently did a major
On 2009-08-24 19:56, Paul Cartwright wrote:
On Mon August 24 2009, Ron Johnson wrote:
But if Paul is asking the benefit of procmail over competing MDAs
like maildrop, then the benefit is cryptic line noise a la Perl.
what I'm asking is.. will it benefit me to change the way I do email and add
> From: Paul Cartwright [mailto:a...@pcartwright.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 5:56 PM
>
> On Mon August 24 2009, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > But if Paul is asking the benefit of procmail over competing MDAs
> > like maildrop, then the benefit is cryptic line noise a la Perl.
>
> what I'm aski
On Mon August 24 2009, Ron Johnson wrote:
> But if Paul is asking the benefit of procmail over competing MDAs
> like maildrop, then the benefit is cryptic line noise a la Perl.
what I'm asking is.. will it benefit me to change the way I do email and add
another program into the mix.
right now I d
On 2009-08-24 17:11, Kevin Ross wrote:
From: Paul Cartwright [mailto:a...@pcartwright.com]
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 1:35 PM
On Mon August 24 2009, Micha wrote:
Personally I use fetchmail + procmail to fetch and filter my mail
I use fetchmail to pull in my mail for all my domain accounts.
> From: Paul Cartwright [mailto:a...@pcartwright.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 1:35 PM
>
> On Mon August 24 2009, Micha wrote:
> > Personally I use fetchmail + procmail to fetch and filter my mail
>
> I use fetchmail to pull in my mail for all my domain accounts. Kmail
> pulls it
> all in
Am 2008-09-23 23:58:12, schrieb Bijan Soleymani:
> Hey everyone,
>
> I need a rule to filter debian-user into a seperate maildir. I know
> there's the header:
> X-Maling-List:
> so I tried:
> * ^X-Mailing-List: /home/bijan/Maildir/.lists.debian/
>
> and several variations, but none of them wo
Alex Samad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 05:44:00AM +0200, s. keeling wrote:
> >
> > my procmail rule, and mine splits each debian list into its own mbox,
> > and handles newsfroup backscatter:
> >
> > #
> > # debian-${MATCH}
> > #
> >
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 05:57:12 +0200 (CEST) s. keeling wrote:
> Andrei Popescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > :0 :
> > > * [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > /home/bijan/Maildir/.lists.debian/
> > Isn't this going to miss all those posts that are Cc'd to
> > debian-user? (I have no idea of procmail rules, I pr
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 08:05:02 +0100 Bob Cox wrote:
>
> > How about:
> >
> > :0 :
> > * [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > /home/bijan/Maildir/.lists.debian/
> >
> > Something very similar works for me (but not using maildir format,
> > hence no trailing slash).
>
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 05:44:00AM +0200, s. keeling wrote:
> Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > If you aren't wedded to procmail for some other reason, then maybe
> > maildrop would be more to your liking, since it has a much simpler
> > syntax. Here's my maildrop rule for filtering d
Andrei Popescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 08:05:02 +0100 Bob Cox wrote:
>
> > How about:
> >
> > :0 :
> > * [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > /home/bijan/Maildir/.lists.debian/
> >
> > Something very similar works for me (but not using maildir format,
> > hence no trailing slash).
>
> Isn
Bijan Soleymani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> I need a rule to filter debian-user into a seperate maildir. I know
> there's the header:
> X-Maling-List:
> so I tried:
> * ^X-Mailing-List: /home/bijan/Maildir/.lists.debian/
>
> and several variations, but none of them worked.
Describe your
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> If you aren't wedded to procmail for some other reason, then maybe
> maildrop would be more to your liking, since it has a much simpler
> syntax. Here's my maildrop rule for filtering d-u mails:
>
> if ( /^X-Mailing-List:.**/ )
> {
> to "Maildir/.
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 08:05:02 +0100 Bob Cox wrote:
> How about:
>
> :0 :
> * [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> /home/bijan/Maildir/.lists.debian/
>
> Something very similar works for me (but not using maildir format,
> hence no trailing slash).
Isn't this going to miss all those posts that are Cc'd to debian-
> > I need a rule to filter debian-user into a seperate maildir. I know
> > there's the header:
> > X-Maling-List:
On Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 23:58:12 -0400, Bijan Soleymani wrote:
> I need a rule to filter debian-user into a seperate maildir. I know
> there's the header:
> X-Maling-List: http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/400
Steve
--
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 23:58:12 -0400, Bijan Soleymani ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> Hey everyone,
>
> I need a rule to filter debian-user into a seperate maildir. I know
> there's the header:
> X-Maling-List:
> so I tried:
> * ^X-Mailing-List: /home/bijan/Maildir/.lists.debian/
How about:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 23:58:12 -0400
Bijan Soleymani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey everyone,
>
> I need a rule to filter debian-user into a seperate maildir. I know
> there's the header:
> X-Maling-List:
> so I tried:
> * ^X-Mailing-List: /home/bijan/Maildir/.lists.debian/
>
> and several v
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, Bijan Soleymani wrote:
> Hey everyone,
>
> I need a rule to filter debian-user into a seperate maildir. I know
> there's the header:
> X-Maling-List:
> so I tried:
> * ^X-Mailing-List: /home/bijan/Maildir/.lists.debian/
>
> and several variations, but none of them worked.
On 09/23/08 22:58, Bijan Soleymani wrote:
Hey everyone,
I need a rule to filter debian-user into a seperate maildir. I know
there's the header:
X-Maling-List:
If you aren't wedded to procmail for some other reason, then maybe
maildrop would be more to your liking, since it has a much simple
Am 2008-07-27 16:53:28, schrieb Arvind Marathe:
> :0
> * ^X-Spam-Status: Yes
> possible-spam/
> #
> :0
> * ^X-Spam-Level: *
This
* ^X-Spam-Level.*\*\*\*\*\*
works better.
Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
24V Electronic Engineer
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:40:39PM +0530, Arvind Marathe wrote:
> Hmm - i have only used procmail. Sometime i will try maildrop.
> Depending on whether i like it, i'll join one of the camps and either
> credit you or curse you ;)
Have a read of the man page for fetchmail. It does not look to
favou
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 12:36:43PM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Mon,28.Jul.08, 14:57:16, Arvind Marathe wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 1:42 AM, Andrei Popescu
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Sun,27.Jul.08, 17:07:29, Arvind Marathe wrote:
> > >
> > >> OK some more investigation. All
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 09:34:33AM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
> Arvind Marathe:
> > :0
> > * ^X-Spam-Level: *
> > possible-spam/
>
> Bob Cox:
> > Won't that rule match anything with a 'X-Spam-Level:' header ?
>
> Yes, the asterisks in the rule are being treated as regular
> expression characte
On Mon,28.Jul.08, 14:57:16, Arvind Marathe wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 1:42 AM, Andrei Popescu
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun,27.Jul.08, 17:07:29, Arvind Marathe wrote:
> >
> >> OK some more investigation. All the d-u mails, getting listed as spam,
> >> have X-Spam-Checker-Version, X-
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 1:42 AM, Andrei Popescu
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun,27.Jul.08, 17:07:29, Arvind Marathe wrote:
>
>> OK some more investigation. All the d-u mails, getting listed as spam,
>> have X-Spam-Checker-Version, X-Spam-Level and X-Spam-Status, in their
>> headers. For eg. one
Arvind Marathe:
> :0
> * ^X-Spam-Level: *
> possible-spam/
Bob Cox:
> Won't that rule match anything with a 'X-Spam-Level:' header ?
Yes, the asterisks in the rule are being treated as regular
expression characters (match any of preceding character).
You want:
:0
* ^X-Spam-Level: \*\
On Sun,27.Jul.08, 17:07:29, Arvind Marathe wrote:
> OK some more investigation. All the d-u mails, getting listed as spam,
> have X-Spam-Checker-Version, X-Spam-Level and X-Spam-Status, in their
> headers. For eg. one of the mails has:
>
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08)
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 01:35:00PM +0100, Bob Cox wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 17:07:29 +0530, Arvind Marathe ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 04:53:28PM +0530, Arvind Marathe wrote:
>
> > > :0
> > > * ^X-Spam-Level: *
> > > possible-spam/
>
> Won't that rule
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 17:07:29 +0530, Arvind Marathe ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 04:53:28PM +0530, Arvind Marathe wrote:
> > :0
> > * ^X-Spam-Level: *
> > possible-spam/
Won't that rule match anything with a 'X-Spam-Level:' header ?
--
Bob Cox. Stoke Gifford,
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 04:53:28PM +0530, Arvind Marathe wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> As mentioned in another thread yesterday, i have setup getmail to
> retrieve mails from my gmail id. In my setup, getmail delivers the
> mail to procmail, which in turn filters them into different mailboxes,
> including a
On May 20, 3:10 pm, Owen Heisler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> are there advantages . . . ?
Like everything else, it depends on your situation. If you are a
single user just trying to set up yourself on your own personal
machine, it should be easy.
I think I used this tutorial:
http://www.linuxf
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 03:06:05PM -0500, Owen Heisler wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-05-20 at 11:11 -0700, BartlebyScrivener wrote:
> > I found a good HOWTO also. It said use getmail and maildrop instead of
> > fetchmail and procmail. :) I spent a whole day trying to get procmail
> > to work, then gave up
On Sun, 2007-05-20 at 11:11 -0700, BartlebyScrivener wrote:
> I found a good HOWTO also. It said use getmail and maildrop instead of
> fetchmail and procmail. :) I spent a whole day trying to get procmail
> to work, then gave up and set up maildrop in half an hour.
I switched to getmail from fetc
Am 2007-03-08 08:50:13, schrieb Arlie Stephens:
> On Mar 08 2007, jeffd wrote:
> > maybe something like this would work?
> > :0:
> > * ^List-Id:.*debian-user\.lists\.debian\.org
> > -debian-user
>
> It looked promising, but didn't work. Thanks anyway.
I LOVE this ultragenial answers!!! G
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 10:44:21AM -0800, Arlie Stephens wrote:
>
[snip procmail log]
>
> In other words, the recipe is correct, but procmail can't deliver to
> the mailbox file, and goes on to try other recipes. Why?
>
> $ ll Mail/-deb*
> -rw--- 1 arlie arlie 52796850 Mar 9 10:27
On Mar 08 2007, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 09:37:50AM -0800, Arlie Stephens wrote:
> > On Mar 08 2007, S Scharf wrote:
> > >
> > > On 3/8/07, Arlie Stephens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >The recipe that *usually* works, indented here for convenient reading.
Arlie Stephens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> I've got a strange problem with my procmail setup, and it's presently
> affecting my handling of the debian-user list. I suspect I've made
> some stupid error I just can't see.
>
> The goal - filter all mailing lists into their own mailboxes,
> particu
On Thu, 08 Mar 2007, Arlie Stephens wrote:
> On Mar 08 2007, jeffd wrote:
> >
> > Arlie Stephens wrote:
>
> > >I've got a strange problem with my procmail setup, and it's presently
> > >affecting my handling of the debian-user list. I suspect I've made
> > >some stupid error I just can't see.
>
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007, Arlie Stephens wrote:
On Mar 08 2007, jeffd wrote:
Arlie Stephens wrote:
I've got a strange problem with my procmail setup, and it's presently
affecting my handling of the debian-user list. I suspect I've made
some stupid error I just can't see.
The goal - filter all
On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 09:37:50AM -0800, Arlie Stephens wrote:
> On Mar 08 2007, S Scharf wrote:
> >
> > On 3/8/07, Arlie Stephens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >The recipe that *usually* works, indented here for convenient reading.
> > >
> > ># Debian User List
> > >:0H:
> > >
On Mar 08 2007, S Scharf wrote:
>
> On 3/8/07, Arlie Stephens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >The recipe that *usually* works, indented here for convenient reading.
> >
> ># Debian User List
> >:0H:
> >* ^(To|Cc):.*debian-user
> >-debian-user
> >
> >
> Does running procmail with
On 3/8/07, Arlie Stephens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi All,
I've got a strange problem with my procmail setup, and it's presently
affecting my handling of the debian-user list. I suspect I've made
some stupid error I just can't see.
The goal - filter all mailing lists into their own mailboxes
1 - 100 of 545 matches
Mail list logo
