On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
I wonder if procmail should also regard them as equivalent too.
You don't really need that. That's what the idiom
[ ]*
exists. Between brackets, there is exactly a space and a tab.
See http://mirror.ncsa.uiuc.edu/procmail-faq/mini-faq.html
--
To
On 2007-10-08 10:22:09 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
I wonder if procmail should also regard them as equivalent too.
You don't really need that. That's what the idiom
[ ]*
exists. Between brackets, there is exactly a space and a tab.
I know
On 2007-10-08 10:22:09 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
See http://mirror.ncsa.uiuc.edu/procmail-faq/mini-faq.html
BTW, this FAQ seems to be more complete than the one distributed
with the procmail package. Is there any reason not to have a single
complete official FAQ for procmail, distributed with
Package: procmail
Version: 3.22-11
Severity: normal
In my .procmailrc, I have the following filter:
:0
* ^Date: *,
{
LOG=Rejected: Invalid date.
EXITCODE=$DEVNULL
:0
/dev/null
}
but procmail doesn't take it into account on messages with the header
Date: , 7 Oct 2007 11:17:54 -0600
or
On 2007-10-08 00:16:25 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
If you think you have discovered a bug, your bug report should be
self-contained (you do not explain what does DEVNULL mean), and it
must be as simple as possible. I think it is not asking too much.
DEVNULL contains a number, but that's not
On 2007-10-08 01:27:27 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
Now, the bug may come from formail (the mail is rewritten several times
by formail, but it shouldn't change the Date: header). I've added the
following at the very beginning of my .procmailrc:
[...]
I've found the cause of the problem. The
6 matches
Mail list logo
