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

List:       procmail
Subject:    Re: Mailing list handler
From:       LuKreme <kremels () kreme ! com>
Date:       2008-08-17 9:20:00
Message-ID: 2D0D51E4-B26B-4F31-83D9-5B64800AF6F8 () kreme ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

[I accidently double-hit reply/send on my last email, so it replied  
and sent it unedited, sorry]

On 6-Aug-2008, at 11:28, Professional Software Engineering wrote:

> At 14:01 2008-08-05 -0400, Jake Di Toro wrote:
>> I've had some recent changes to my mail handling and wanted to
>> streamline some more.  Dug through the archives for the mailing list
>> handlers and came up with this as the latest:
>> http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/procmail/2007-11/msg00028.html
>
> It should be noted that while there is a line comment near the top  
> of the recipe that says "Sean wrote this", the entirety of that  
> modified recipe wasn't written by me, and what was, has been  
> considerably modified.  My code is at:

I should have been clearer in my notes.  I was referring to the two  
blocks immediately following the comment, thought that is, I see, not  
obvious to anyone but me.

The rest of it was written by the list in a sort of ad hoc effort, to  
the best of my recollection.  You were probably part of that  
committee :)

> There are differences in the order and content of the conditions in  
> the recipe you linked to as versus my original.

I did rearrange your checks based on my own email.  I figured it was  
best to grab 'proper' lists first, before parsing the Sender lines.

> The fallback recipe presented in the message you linked to is also  
> very different from my original, and without running it against a  
> corpus,  I couldn't say whether it is any more or less effective.   
> The original merely removed -owner from the address found in the  
> sender, while this other one uses List-Subscribe (which itself is  
> part of the RFC-2919 spec, and if present, should mean that the  
> FIRST recipe should have easily matched something).

Yeah, key word there is 'should' though.  I have several lists (or at  
least I did) that have a list-subscribe header and not a list-id.   
I've not touched that part of the code in years though.

>

-- 
Ah we're lonely, we're romantic / and the cider's laced with acid /
	and the Holy Spirit's crying, Where's the beef? / And the moon
	is swimming naked / and the summer night is fragrant / with a
         mighty expectation of relief

____________________________________________________________
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]