On Fri, 7 Jan 2000 13:02:18 +0000
David Murphy <drjolt+ilug at redbrick.dcu.ie> wrote:
| Quoting <20000106152648.S6729 at urda.heanet.ie>
| by Dave Wilson <dave.wilson at heanet.ie>:
| > Is there a right way to invokej rblchk from slocal, or slocal from
| > procmail in such a way that procmail won't try to re-deliver the
| > message after slocal has done the job?
| Double-check for yourself to be sure, but I believe that procmail
| understands X-Loop, and will do the right thing so long as the
| upstream program understands X-Loop too.
After a fashion, I implement loop detection using:
:0:
* ^X-Loop: paul at baltimore.ie
/dev/null
:0:
* $^TO.*${MLISTS}
| formail -A "X-Loop: paul at baltimore.ie" | /usr/lib/sendmail pmcauley at iol.ie
To run a filter I use:
:0 hfw
* Header.*Condition
| scriptpath
To achieve something similar in slocal, you might look at using a filter of:
| filtername | slocal -maildelivery second-slocal-file
Paul
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!
