[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       procmail
Subject:    Please unsubscribe me
From:       Dick Adams <rdadams () access ! digex ! net>
Date:       1996-12-01 20:29:12
[Download RAW message or body]

Please unsubscribe me.
 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Content-Type: text/plain
> 
> procmail-d Digest				Volume 96 : Issue 170
> 
> Today's Topics:
>   Re: Virtual domain with his own user  [ Philip Guenther <guenther@gac.edu> ]
>   mail question - on delivery           [ Mark J Elkins <mje@mje99.posix.co.z ]
>   Re: Only doing stuff for one recipe   [ Jason Tang <jasont@padd.press.net> ]
>   Re: Only doing stuff for one recipe   [ Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@pas ]
>   Getting date to use in outputfile     [ Jason Tang <jasont@padd.press.net> ]
>   Re: mail question - on delivery       [ Philip Guenther <guenther@gac.edu> ]
>   Re: Getting date to use in outputfil  [ bodysurf@netcom.com (Tim) ]
>   Skimming files out of a mail folder   [ Bill Costa - NIS/CIS - University o ]
>   Re: Skimming files out of a mail fol  [ "Alan K. Stebbens" <aks@anywhere.en ]
>   Re: Skimming files out of a mail fol  [ Tony Nugent <tony@trishul.sci.gu.ed ]
>   Help needed with .procmailrc protect  [ Herbert Hotz <herbert.hotz@symmetri ]
>   Re: Procmail dumping core             [ Dave Horsfall <dave@fgh.oz.au> ]
>   Is this a bug?                        [ David Pesticcio <davidp@cableol.net ]
>   Re: Is this a bug?                    [ David Pesticcio <davidp@cableol.net ]
>   Frep 'Word list too long' ???         [ paul milligan <pjm@pobox.com> ]
>   Re: Frep 'Word list too long' ???     [ bodysurf@netcom.com (Tim) ]
>   Address ONLY Match/Variable Recipe?   [ Doctor@netcom.com (The Doctor {Who? ]
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 00:58:41 -0600
> From: Philip Guenther <guenther@gac.edu>
> To: David Graves <www@graves.com>
> cc: procmail@Informatik.RWTH-Aachen.DE
> Subject: Re: Virtual domain with his own user list 
> Message-Id: <199611270658.AAA04126@solen.gac.edu>
> 
> David Graves <www@graves.com> writes:
> >Now lemme get this straight:
> >
> >Even if I WERE to hack sendmail and do the following:
> >
> >1) Add procmail as a delivery agent using the -a to accept the user
> >2) Add rules in Rulset 0 that would call this new delivery agent.
> >
> >I'd STILL have problems with BCC's due to various other problems such as sendm
> ail collapsing duplicates, etc...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I didn't make myself clear.  Given your two points above, if
> you crafted those lines in ruleset 0 correctly, then it would all work,
> even in the face of Bcc's and mailing lists.  Heck, if you use procmail
> as the local mailer (that is, the "Mlocal" definition calls procmail),
> you could even use that and skip step 1, but the local mailer is overloaded
> enough (with aliasing and stuff) that I would _not_ suggest doing that.
> The hard part is getting the lines that invoke the procmail mailer correct.
> When make the database lookup to see whether the address being processed
> is that of a virtual domain, you need to save the 'current' address past
> the database lookup and then give that as the user ($:) part of the mailer
> call ($#procmail) line.
> 
> For example, to quote the mailertable related lines in sendmail 8.8.3's
> m4 generated config, here's the ruleset 0 lines:
> 
> # not local -- try mailer table lookup
> R$* <@ $+ > $*		$: < $2 > $1 < @ $2 > $3        extract host name
> R< $+ . > $*		$: < $1 > $2                    strip trailing dot
> R< $+ > $*		$: < $(mailertable $1 $) > $2   lookup
> R< $~[ : $+ > $*	$>95 < $1 : $2 > $3             check -- resolved?
> 
> And here's ruleset 95:
> 
> S95
> R< > $*				$@ $1			strip off null relay
> R< error : $- $+ > $*		$#error $@ $1 $: $2	special case errors
> R< local : > $* < @ $* >	$#local $@ $1@$2 $: $1	no host: use old user
> R< local : $+ > $* <@ $* . > $*	$#local $@ $2@$3 $: $1	special case local
> R< $- : $+ @ $+ > $*<$*>$*	$# $1 $@ $3 $: $2<@$3>	use literal user
> R< $- : $+ > $*			$# $1 $@ $2 $: $3	try qualified mailer
> R< $=w > $*			$@ $2			delete local host
> R< $+ > $*			$#_RELAY_ $@ $1 $: $2	use unqualified mailer
> 
> 
> Watch what happens when an address like
> 	user<@virtualdomain.>
> goes through this:
> 	user<@virtualdomain.>
> 	<virtualdomain.>user<@virtualdomain.>
> 	<virtualdomain>user<@virtualdomain.>
>   lookup "virtualdomain" in mailertable, get back "procmail:/some/dir/virtdom"
> 	<procmail:/some/dir/virtdom>user<@virtualdomain.>
>   call 95
>      unchanged until ....
> 	$#procmail $@ /some/dir/virtdom $: user<@virtualdomain.>
> 
> The key thing to note is that the original recipient address being processed
> is still availible past the database lookup for passing to the mailer via $:.
> 
> You should note that while this appears to require a procmailrc for each
> virtual domain, that is not true.  You can either have several all linked
> together and use $_ to figure out what name it was 'called' under, or
> you can just look at the recipient address, as it will look like:
> 
> 	user@virutaldomain
> 
> (don't forget that it gets passed through ruleset 4, not to mention the
> ones listed in the mailer definition, thus the 'missing' braces.)
> 
> 
> ...
> >If that IS the case, then does that mean that I throw my Solaris stock 2.4 sen
> dmail in the crapper, throw my 
> >procmail in the crapper and pull my hair out compiling and installing V8.whate
> ver sendmail and use THAT to deliver 
> >mail to my thousands of virtual users on my dozens of virtual domains?
> 
> 
> Well, I would suggest upgrading the sendmail V8 anyway, and that it really
> isn't that hard, but your environment is different from mine, so it's your
> call.  You _should_ be able to do the above without compiling sendmail V8
> yourself, but I haven't done so myself.
> 
> Perhaps now is a good time to throw in a disclaimer: I don't run an ISP,
> but rather a medium sized (60+ unix hosts, 1000+ hosts total) academic
> network, and there's only one 'virtual host' here, though there is some
> other sendmail trickery involved.  What I haven't done myself, I have
> either heard from others whom I consider experts, or reasoned from too
> much documentation and experimentation.  After that it was just a matter
> of my mind (to invoke Lovecraft) "correlating all of its contents".  If
> you think something I've said is flakey, feel free to bash it, just be
> prepared to back yourself up with logic (and 3km of 1/2" tape).
> 
> Philip Guenther
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 09:23:13 +0200
> From: Mark J Elkins <mje@mje99.posix.co.za>
> To: procmail@Informatik.RWTH-Aachen.DE
> Subject: mail question - on delivery
> Message-Id: <199611270723.JAA31532@mje99.posix.co.za>
> 
> Bit off the point - but looks like there is a lot of sendmail folk out
> there. I come from an smail background - but have moved to sendmail
> now. I have one uucp connection to a machine called 'zeusa', but he is
> the domain 'zeusa.co.za'. His domain is MX'ed to come to me. I used to have a
> 'paths' entry ...
> 
> .zeusa.co.za    zeusa!%s        300
> zeusa           zeusa!%s        300
> zeusa.co.za     zeusa!%s        300
> 
> What is the equilivant of doing this in sendmail language? I'm running
> sendmail 8.7.3.  I've asked various people locally - but no one has come up
> with an answer for me yet.  I'm getting bored forwarding all his mail manually
> and don't thing I really need to resort to procmail for this...
> 
> -- 
>   .  .     ___. .__      Olivetti Systems & Networks, Unix Support - Sth Africa
>  /| /|       / /__       mje@posix.co.za  -  Mark J Elkins, SCO ACE, Cisco CCIE
> / |/ |ARK \_/ /__ LKINS  Tel: +27 11 456 3125  Cell: +27 82 601 0496
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 09:27:10 +0000 (GMT)
> From: Jason Tang <jasont@padd.press.net>
> To: "Karl E. Vogel" <vogelke@c17mis.region2.wpafb.af.mil>
> Cc: Procmail <procmail@Informatik.RWTH-Aachen.DE>
> Subject: Re: Only doing stuff for one recipe
> Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.961127092210.2671G-100000@garlic.compnews.co.uk>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> 
> Done what you've said below, but it still only executes for the first 
> recipe it encounters. At present the .procmailrc is:
> 
> === .procmailrc
> :HB
> * ^Subject:.*Air Quality Bulletin
> | /home/dill/isps/src/air/do_level > 
> /home/dill/isps/src/air/Output/air.level
> :HB
> * ^Subject:.*Air Quality Bulletin
> | /home/dill/isps/src/air/do_quality > 
> /home/dill/isps/src/air/Output/air.quality
> 
> === Log
> procmail: [14163] Wed Nov 27 09:18:16 1996
> procmail: Match on "^Subject:.*Air Quality Bulletin"
> procmail: Executing " /home/dill/isps/src/air/do_level > 
> /home/dill/isps/src/air/Output/air.level"
> procmail: Assigning "LASTFOLDER= /home/dill/isps/src/air/do_level > 
> /home/dill/isps/src/air/Output/air.level"

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

Configure | About | News | Add a list | Sponsored by KoreLogic