> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 16:55:39 +0100
> From: Cliff Sarginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Mutt Users' List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Negative scores and regexp questions
>
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 04:23:51PM +0100, Christian Ordig wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 06:00:36AM -0500, David T-G wrote:
> > > I'm in the same boat, in fact :-) What we really need is for active
> > > scorers to reply!
> > ok. here I is one ...
> > >
> > > If you tried to implement all of that, with those incremental tests, in
> > > procmail your rules would be ugly *and* you'd have a lot of duplication
> > > (I imagine the same sorts of problems would apply to any filter, but I
> > > dunno from maildrop or the others recently mentioned -- yet).
> > That's the point. Imagine someone you don't really care about.
> <snipped -- regretfully>
> Ok, that is a good explanation.
> It still does sound a little complex (since you have been the only
> "active" scorer to reply so far, it does not seem widely used).
> Interesting though, I have a *prime* candidate for a person on a
> particular list (I won't name list or person, but it's no-one on
> this list .. unless he lurks..) whose messages I usually crudely filter into
> a mailbox called "bollocks". Unfortunately he sometimes appears cc'ed
> or to'ed or whatever on a subject I want to hear about. Sounds like
> scoring might help.
I think I know the name of the person, and this is what I have in my
.maildroprc:
if (/^Received: from .*hisdomain\.com/)
{
to "$MAILDIR/trash"
}
This catchis only those messages that he has sent to the list,
leaving those that have been cc'd to him pass as usual.
HTH.
--
FreeBSD 4.4-STABLE
12:12PM up 50 days, 22:55, 13 users, load averages: 0.07, 0.15, 0.17
