--WhfpMioaduB5tiZL
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, 11 Sep 2001 at 19:13:04 -0700, Denis Perelyubskiy wrote:
> * Rino Mardo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [09-Tue-01 19:06 -0700]:
> > you need procmail for that. in my ~/.procmailrc i have something
> > like this:
> >=20
> > :0:
> > * ^Return-path:.*mutt-user.*@mutt\.org
> > $MAILDIR/mutt/
>=20
> actually, does it not make more sense to use ^TO_ expression, in plcae
> of ^Return-path?
>=20
> why did you choose that?
>=20
> (i am not saying ^TO_ is correct, as i only recently started getting
> into procmail, but from what i read about ^TO_ it looks at lots of
> "To:"-like headers. Return-path may or may not be set by the mailing
> list management software, or may actually even be mucked with by MTAs,
> i think...at least i saw some message to this effect on some mailing
> list. given, it is not a correct configuration, but still a possible
> one)
I think "Return-to:" is prone to much fewer problems than "^TO_".
Consider what happens if someone BCC's the list, or bounces (i.e.
redirect/send without modifying the headers) a message to it[1]. They'll
fall right through "^TO_", whereas "Return-path:" will still catch them.
Personally though, i prefer filtering on this header:
^Delivered-to: mutt-users@ns\.gbnet\.net
or even better, the "List-Id:" or "Mailing-List:" headers, but
mutt-users has neither. :-/
[1] Sidetrack: I checked now and noticed that TO_ includes
"Resent-To:", which should actually catch bounces by some (most?)
MUAs. It still isn't bulletproof by far though. :)
--=20
Piet Delport <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Today's subliminal thought is:
--WhfpMioaduB5tiZL
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQE7nthyzRUP82sZFCcRAjldAKCAy9RWLKABOdoBB+PmMp9wkDqOiQCfUdyN
Vm7W+ozkxIEYypWyqqjtIAg=
=S0vK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--WhfpMioaduB5tiZL--
