Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #178541

Re: procmail, when were the last rights administered?

Show all headers | View raw

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 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 add a formail line but the docs do not seem to cover that 
> > recipe. I want an email to gene@localhost when it sequesters a virii.
> > 
> [...]
> 
> What do you mean by "formail line"?
> formail is a command to pipe a mbox thru procmail.

Yes, but it's also used _by_ procmail during its processing.
For example, here's a standard procmailrc recipe for eliminating
messages with identical Message-IDs:

:0 Wh: $HOME/msgid.lock
| formail -D 199999 $HOME/msgid.cache

So Gene might be looking for a potted recipe for formail to do what he
wants, whatever he means by "sequesters a virii", and recipes with
formail in them might make good examples to hack at.

The obvious place to start is procmailex: insert the safety net; then
the example above shows the W code for checking the exit code of
formail/virus-scanner/whatever before proceeding, then the vacation
example would help with how to generate the desired email
notification depending on the exit code. Remember to add the c flag
so that the recipe is non-delivering: that means the actual (received)
email will always drop through to the next recipe. Otherwise, piping
through the virus-scanner might be interpreted as "delivery". After
testing remove the safety net if desired.

man procmail/procmailrc/procmailex/formail all work here on wheezy and
jessie, so I'm not sure why he felt the need to put Alternative Facts
into his Subject header.

Cheers,
David.

PS I dodged your bullet (mail-followup-to).

Back to linux.debian.user | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

procmail, when were the last rights administered? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-03-07 03:40 +0100
  Re: procmail, when were the last rights administered? Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2017-03-07 03:50 +0100
    Re: procmail, when were the last rights administered? Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2017-03-07 04:00 +0100
      Re: procmail, when were the last rights administered? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-03-07 04:10 +0100
    Re: procmail, when were the last rights administered? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-03-07 04:00 +0100
      Re: procmail, when were the last rights administered? Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2017-03-07 15:50 +0100
        Re: procmail, when were the last rights administered? Jude DaShiell <jdashiel@panix.com> - 2017-03-07 17:20 +0100
        Re: procmail, when were the last rights administered? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-03-07 17:20 +0100
          Re: procmail, when were the last rights administered? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-03-07 20:30 +0100
            Re: procmail, when were the last rights administered? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-03-07 23:20 +0100
              Re: procmail, when were the last rights administered? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-03-08 03:20 +0100
  Re: procmail, when were the last rights administered? Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-03-07 11:10 +0100

csiph-web