On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 07:02:01PM +0100, Marc A. Donges wrote:
> On Friday, February 02, 2001 at 18:41:16 (+0100), Sven Burgener wrote:
> > --8<--
> > :0
> > * ^From: Mail Delivery Subsystem
> > | (formail -I "To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]") |\
> > (formail -I "CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]") | $SENDMAIL -t
> >
> > :0
> > ! [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > --8<--
>
> The first recipy is a delivering one. This means that if the first
> pattern matches, the mail won't get to the second.
True, but ...
> If you want to have both actions taken, you must specify the "c" flag
> on the first one (":0c" instead of ":0").
... that wasn't my question.
It is not my intention to apply both the formail'ing and the '!'
forwarding to one particular email.
> Furthermore, your first recipy will almost certainly create
> mail-loops: If [EMAIL PROTECTED] cannot be delivered to, the mail will
> be bounced to the account that did the above procmail-filtering, in
> turn being forwarded to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You should therefore specify
> "-f '<>'" on the sendmail-command-line to create a
> zero-return-address.
Thanks for the info about this issue. I'll take that into account.
> Why do you want those headers to appear in the message?
I merely want the mail to appear to be destined to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
instead of the user on the system that has the above .procmailrc file
and that receives this email in the first place.
Additionally, I want to add a CC: to the message on-the-fly, overwriting
an existing one, if there.
I must apologise, the above code *does* work. My test scenario / test
setup was misleading me. /me blushes
Thank you for your time and insight, though.
Sven
--
"{sum += $2} END {print sum}", said Tom awkwardly.
