> I'd had much better luck matching List-Id than matching addresses in
> recent years. YMMV.
As long as you're not CC:d, you're fine. If you're CC:'d, well, Mailman
is more brain-dead than you could imagine.
Mike.
> I'd had much better luck matching List-Id than matching addresses in
> recent years. YMMV.
As long as you're not CC:d, you're fine. If you're CC:'d, well, Mailman
is more brain-dead than you could imagine.
Mike.
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notm
On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 00:55:20 +0600
Mikhail Gusarov wrote:
>
> Twas brillig at 13:52:20 04.12.2009 UTC-05 when
> mdorman at ironicdesign.com did gyre and gimble:
>
> MAD> Err, this makes no sense. How can Mailman have any knowledge
> MAD> of, and therefore "do anything" to any message that ca
> But the above sounds like the List-Id header is unreliable enough to
> be useless.
In my current .sieve setup, I have 93 entries for mailing lists. 87
of them use list-id[1]. 3 use list-post. 1 uses 'mailing-list', but
looking at it, could be switched to list-id. 2 use x-mailing-list
(blaste
On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 00:07:36 +0600
Mikhail Gusarov wrote:
> The only problem with Cc is that Mailman suppresses duplicate
> messages and hence there is no List-Id: on message.
Err, this makes no sense. How can Mailman have any knowledge of, and
therefore "do anything" to any message that came b
On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 00:55:20 +0600
Mikhail Gusarov wrote:
>
> Twas brillig at 13:52:20 04.12.2009 UTC-05 when
> mdor...@ironicdesign.com did gyre and gimble:
>
> MAD> Err, this makes no sense. How can Mailman have any knowledge
> MAD> of, and therefore "do anything" to any message that came
> But the above sounds like the List-Id header is unreliable enough to
> be useless.
In my current .sieve setup, I have 93 entries for mailing lists. 87
of them use list-id[1]. 3 use list-post. 1 uses 'mailing-list', but
looking at it, could be switched to list-id. 2 use x-mailing-list
(blaste
On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 00:07:36 +0600
Mikhail Gusarov wrote:
> The only problem with Cc is that Mailman suppresses duplicate
> messages and hence there is no List-Id: on message.
Err, this makes no sense. How can Mailman have any knowledge of, and
therefore "do anything" to any message that came b
