I left out one crucial constraint: I'm reading the mutt-users digest
via IMAP, so it never gets locally delivered by procmail. I wrote a
little perl script that runs formail while "preserving" some of the
headers in the digest (like "sender"). But that's an ugly solution
and I thought someone might have a better one.
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 02:12:34AM +0100, Christian R Molls wrote:
> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010301 21:44]:
> > I have a question about your formail suggestion. The individual
> > messages that make up the digest only have 2 headers: "From" and
> > "Subject". So when I run formail, the resulting messages don't have
> > anything unique that procmail can use to identify them as being from
> > mutt-users. Other list's digests typically do one of two things:
> >
> > * Include other headers in the individual messages, such as "To" or
> > "Cc", or
> >
> > * Prepend something to the subject, like "[wm-users] Original subject
> > here".
> >
> > How do you handle this when using formail to split the mutt-users
> > digest?
> The trick is to run formail from your .procmailrc. I'll post the
> example from the procmailex manpage:
> :0:
> * ^Subject:.*surfing.*Digest
> | formail +1 -ds >>surfing
> All messages containing "surfing" and "Digest" in the Subject: header
> (that condition should match the surfing list digests) are piped
> to formail which splits them, skipping what it considers the first
> message. The output, ie the separate messages, are appended to folder
> "surfing". So all the messages from one digest go into one mailbox. No
> more filtering is necessary.
> For mutt-users you would use something like:
> :0:
> * ^Subject:.*mutt-users-digest
> | formail +1 -ds >>mutt-users
> chris
> - --
> christian r. molls the rain descended,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and the floods came
>
>
