> Now I'm wondering which of ^TO or ^TO_ is better to use?
TO_, it's newer and more robust (IIRC). There were some very few cases
where TO was better (I don't know them). There was a comment "TO_
should have been called TO, and vice versa", but TO was there first so
it had to stay. Change all you
At 4:26 PM EDT on April 19 John Iverson sent off:
> * On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Rob Reid wrote:
>
> > Return-Path works (for now anyway) and is "cheaper" than ^TO.
>
> My understanding is that some people prefer ^TO or ^TO_ to handle
> mail sent to both the list their personal address
Ah. I'm not o
Incoming from Dan Lowe:
> Previously, s. keeling wrote:
> >
> > Does this actually work for you? I just tested it and it doesn't for
> > me, and I can find no ^Return-Path: header in your mail at least.
>
> The Return-Path header is added by the final delivery MTA - so whether or
> not it's adde
* Rob Reid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-04-19 17:06]:
> At 6:19 AM EDT on April 19 Sven Guckes sent off:
> > so here are some of the addresses:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [EMAIL PROT
Previously, s. keeling wrote:
>
> Does this actually work for you? I just tested it and it doesn't for
> me, and I can find no ^Return-Path: header in your mail at least.
The Return-Path header is added by the final delivery MTA - so whether or
not it's added to a message will vary from one pers
Incoming from Rob Reid:
>
> I see a lot of gbnet grumbling but I've never had a problem because I use a
> minimum match philosophy:
>
> # Sort away mails from the mutt (mail user agent) mailing list
> :0
> * ^Return-Path:
* On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, parv wrote:
> > Why not Just use the regular OR operator?:
>
> when one has to debug complex recipe (as procmail doesn't say what
> was actually matched), or during the creation of one, it's much
> easier to work w/ weighted recpie as one can easily (un)comment &
> test.
in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
wrote John Iverson thusly...
>
> * On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, parv wrote:
>
> > all these can be easily combined as one OR'd recipe (assuming mbox)...
> >
> > :0:
> > * 2147483647^0 ^TOmutt-users@mail\.sonytel\.be
> > * 2147483647^0 ^TOmutt(-dev|-users)?@(ns.)?gbnet\.ne
* On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, parv wrote:
> all these can be easily combined as one OR'd recipe (assuming mbox)...
>
> :0:
> # 000710 - catch messages from gateway address on sonytel.be
> * 2147483647^0 ^TOmutt-users@mail\.sonytel\.be
> #
> # 981009 - catch messages from gateway address on gbnet.net:
>
* On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Rob Reid wrote:
[ ... ]
> Granted, this doesn't catch the other mutt lists (because I don't
> need to), and IN.mutt would be a better name than muttin.
> Return-Path works (for now anyway) and is "cheaper" than ^TO.
My understanding is that some people prefer ^TO or ^TO_
in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
wrote Sven Guckes thusly...
>
> === http://www.math.fu-berlin.de/~guckes/setup/procmailrc
...
> # 981009 - catch messages from gateway address on gbnet.net:
> :0
> * ^TOmutt(-dev|-users)?@(ns.)?gbnet.net
> IN.MUTT
>
> # 000710 - catch messages from gateway address
At 6:19 AM EDT on April 19 Sven Guckes sent off:
> * Dan Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-04-17 17:18]:
> > Previously, s. keeling wrote: [whatever]
> > You seem to have sent this to something other than "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
> > because my list-reply did not work. I had to enter the address manuall
* Sven Guckes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [04/19/02 12:19]:
> I have appended my procmail rules
> which sort them into IN.MUTT mostly - enjoy!
You do not need a rule for each alias (mutt.org, gbnet.net, etc.).
Filtering on the Sender field, you catch them all. Basically, for
Mutt lists I have:
:0
* ^Sen
13 matches
Mail list logo
