[ILUG] procmail receipe

[Darragh Bailey]

just going to respond to all previous mails with one, as sending 4 separate 
responses don't set well with me :)


Quoting Barry O'Donovan <ilug at ihl.ucd.ie>:

> IF I recall correctly, what may work is:
> 
>  * ^X-Spam-Level: (\*)[1-4]$
> 
> c.f. man 5 procmailrc

I think Paul actually hit the nail on the head and procmailrc possibly doesn't 
support the idea of use of {} as repeitive operator bounds. ( btw what does 
c.f. stand for? )



Quoting Colm MacCarthaigh <colm at stdlib.net>:

> :0 wc
> * !^X-Spam-Level: \*\*\*\*\*
> spam/ham-check
> 
> Should do what you want. The rule will filter all mails that don't have
> at least 5 asterisks.

Didn't think of doing it that way, but I don't think it quite covers what I 
want. I don't actually want to filter the mails that have no spam score, just 
the ones that are picking up a score less than my spam, but with A score so 
that I can add them after review to my ham collection to try and reduce the 
score they get in the future.

Using what you said though, I could use the following
:0 wc
* !^X-Spam-Level: \*\*\*\*\*
* ^X-Spam-Level: \*
spam/ham-check

thanks for the suggestion though, I should really try thinking outside of the 
box when it comes to looking at the does not match operator.



Quoting Kevin Philp <kevin at cybercolloids.net>:

> shouldn't that be:
> 
> * !^X-Spam-Level

Only if I was looking to pick up mail that has no spam score what so ever which 
I think is not necessary as it usually means the spam filter is working 
perfectly for those mails. I want to train it with the mails that are border 
line to improve accuracy.



Quoting Paul Jakma <paul at clubi.ie>:

> 
> Does procmail support ranges in bounds?

I'm begining to suspect not, but I can't confirm. But since both man procmailrc 
and man procmailex fail to show the repeitive operator {n} I'm guessing that it 
doesn't.

> one answer, or even (\*(\*(\*(\*)?)?)?), maybe.
> 

Looks like exactly what I need, not sure if that one is better than the altered 
version of Colm's that I have above but I think efficency of the receipes is 
somewhat accedemic unless you need them to process large quantities of mail.


-- 
Darragh

"Nothing's foolproof to a sufficently talented fool"