On 09-09-16 08:35, Hajo Locke wrote: > Hello, > > thanks for your help. > > Am 08.09.2016 um 22:13 schrieb Tom Hendrikx: >> On 08-09-16 20:51, @lbutlr wrote: >>> On Tue Sep 06 2016 07:25:38 Hajo Locke <hajo.lo...@gmx.de> said >>>> How to solve this case and find a string in arbitrary/unknown >>>> headerline? >>> You’ll have to create multiple sieves covering the possible headers. >>> >> Maybe when you tell what you're trying to achieve, we can give you >> better advice. >> >> Almost no one is looking for random strings in random headers, since >> headers are (somewhat) structured data. Could you share with us what >> string you are looking and why you don't know up front which header >> field you need to use to look for it? > > We have a webmailer where experienced users are able to create > filterrules. They can can choose from a lot of predefined headerlines > and insert text to find. After that they choose a respective action. > To cover all cases we had a choosable option "complete header" to find a > string in every headerline without knowing the specific line. This is > done easily in procmail: > > :0 H > * ^*searchstring > > i agree that an option like this is needless and it was a mistake to > offer it. > If this is not achievable in sieve, we have to remove this > search-option. May be we replace by a kind of custom-headerline.
I guess that would be my solution too. Maybe you can check the existing configurations from your users to see how many ppl actually use this action. If there any only a few, then that might be used an an extra argument in the discussion on removing the option altogether. Especially when you are able to manually replace the existing uses with a construct that sieve *does* support (f.i. someone uses this because wasn't able to determine which header name was actually needed, which is easier when you actually filtered a few messages). Kind regards, Tom