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 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. > > > Because the procmail web site has had a moving site message up since > sometime in 2014? > > And I've been told repeatedly that "its dead Jim", try something else. > But I'm with you folks, for me it Just Works(TM) but I've long since > forgotten the how to write a new recipe part for it.
Yes, my last modification date for .procmailrc is 2004-03-30. But that's what man procmailex is for, a 500-line file of glossed recipes catering for different situations. With the hints above, which part of the jigsaw are you missing? Cheers, David.
