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

List:       procmail
Subject:    Re: match question
From:       doug () safeport ! com
Date:       2006-12-20 20:16:21
Message-ID: 20061220151438.S12336 () pemaquid ! safeport ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Thank you all for your replys and time - I have been busy/sick I will check
this out.

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, Bart Schaefer wrote:

> On 12/10/06, doug@safeport.com <doug@safeport.com> wrote:
> >
> >   UNREADABLE='[^?"]*big5|iso-2022-jp|ISO-2022-KR|euc-kr|gb2312|ks_c_5601-1987'
>
> This is wrong.  It means  '[^?"]*big5' OR 'iso-2022-jp' OR ...
>
> What's intended, I believe, is
>
> UNREADABLE='[^?"]*(big5|iso-2022-jp|ISO-2022-KR|euc-kr|gb2312|ks_c_5601-1987)'
>
> However, that shouldn't have affected the recipes in the specific
> example you give.  With the fixed regex this:
>
> >   * 1^0 $ ^Subject:.*=\?($UNREADABLE)
>
> should match any subject containing an equal sign followed by a
> literal question mark followed by any number of characters that are
> not question marks or quotes followed by one of the charset names
> you're filtering.  This:
>
> >   * 1^0 $ ^Content-Type:.*charset="?($UNREADABLE)
>
> should match any content-type containing charset= followed optionally
> by a quote followed by (etc.).  With the old regex, the "any number of
> characters that are not ..." applies only to the big5 pattern, but
> GB2312 directly follows the question mark or quote so it shouldn't
> matter.
>
> One other minor note:
>
> >   :0:
> >   * ^Content-Type:.*multipart
> >   * BH ?? $ ^Content-Type:.*^?.*charset="?($UNREADABLE)
>
> There's no reason to use BH there, the first recipe should have caught
> any mail that has the charset in the header.  You just need B.
>
> > In writing this, I checked for non-printing characters as you can see the
> > Content-Type are exactly the same. This seem to then be some kind of timing,
> > locking or other non-delivery issue.
>
> As Sean suggested, you're going to have to turn on verbose logging and
> examine the logfile. One possibility is that there is an extra blank
> line in some of the message headers that is causing procmail to treat
> them as part of the body, but you seem to have checked for that.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> procmail mailing list   Procmail homepage: http://www.procmail.org/
> procmail@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE
> http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail
>

_____
Douglas Denault
http://www.safeport.com
doug@safeport.com
Voice: 301-469-8766
  Fax: 301-469-0601

____________________________________________________________
procmail mailing list   Procmail homepage: http://www.procmail.org/
procmail@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail

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