On Fri 08 Mar 2013 at 23:19:06 -0700, Bob Proulx wrote: > But I am a pedantic sort and so must say that every message does have
To continue with the pedantry :) and to return to the issue raised in this subthread, a CC is not a duplicate of a list mail. Put them side by side and the difference is obvious. One result of focussing on a single characteristic of a mail is that the suggested Procmail recipe would effectively delete most of the list mail, which might not be a desired outcome. Fortunately, Mutt users have the opportunity to take advantage of its ability to construct a custom Message-ID: header for a mail sent to debian-user. Like so: send-hook . 'unmy_hdr Message-ID:' send-hook 'debian-user@lists\.debian\.org' 'my_hdr Message-ID:<`date +"%Y%m%d%H%M%S"`noccsple...@example.com>' A mail with NoCcsPlease in its In-Reply-To or References headers can only have had the mailing list mail as its source. However, the CC will not contain a List-ID: header. This makes it possible to distinguish between a list mail and a CC. Procmail recipes based on these two conditions can now file list mail with certainty and, if desired, delete CCs. How this could be implemented in other MUAs depends on the capability of the mailer. It works nicely with Mutt because of the behind-the-scenes send-hook facility. Icedove and KMail can alter the portion of the Message-ID: header after the @, but whether this could be made automatic in the same way as Mutt I do not know. Header rewriting by an MTA may also be a possibility, but I know nothing about that either. It is reported that some mailers do not produce In-Reply-To: and References: headers when replying to a mail. Well, you can't win 'em all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130309135613.GK32477@desktop