Somehow, I got on the debian help list. Pleas get me (mckitt1...@gmail.com) off. I think my problems were due to bad sectors on my hard drive. I will try again when I get a new one. I have the debian 1-8 i386 iso's burned to dvds. best of luck bob
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Bob Proulx <b...@proulx.com> wrote: > David Guntner wrote: > > Bob Proulx grabbed a keyboard and wrote: > > > For one I use the mailing list headers List-Id and List-Post. Those > > > are the standard headers and those are the best ones to use for filing > > > mailing list messages. Smart MUAs use those to know how to do a > > > list-reply. Therefore the copy I want is the copy that comes from the > > > mailing list. > > > > Not every MUA does, however. The one I'm using, for example, does not > > (or if it does, I've never figured out how to turn that feature on...). > > Therefor, I've also got a Procmail recipe that adds a Reply-To: > > pointing back to the list on my local copy (of debian-user, since it > > doesn't add one itself - on lists that do so, I don't use that rule) so > > that when I hit reply, it goes back to the list as it should since most > > of the time a reply should go back to the list when replying to a > > posting on the list. And I don't want to have to remember to do it > > manually each time I reply. :-) > > My takeaway is that you have applied a workaround that shouldn't be > needed to a problem that shouldn't exist. Applying Reply-To destroys > the sender's use of Reply-To which is reserved for them to use. > > The classic line here is, "Now you have two problems." :-) > > > It all depends on your experiences and own requirements. I for one am > > on a decade+ old list that was "home grown" - the guy running it "rolled > > his own," so to speak. It doesn't use a subject tag, and it has never > > had those now-standard List-ID headers, nor is it likely to anytime in > > the future. So even if I *were* using a MUA that understands those > > headers, it would do me no good. > > I would nag your buddy into adding those headers. It will help modern > mail user agents to be able to do the right thing automatically. > > > It has never occurred to me to ever filter based in a List-ID field, > > since back in the "old days" when I started doing this, they hadn't yet > > come into existence. :-) > > Every decade or so it is good to take a breath and look around and > make smart upgrades to systems. The Debian mailing lists have been > around for a long time and are basically a home grown system too > (using Smartlist) but they comply with modern standards. I operate > several Majordomo mailing lists and they all comply with the modern > standards. It is really as easy piping the message through formail > and having it add the headers. > > > And even *after* coming into existence, you > > still have to *send* your message to the list in question, thus the To: > > or Cc: will *always* be there, regardless of the presence (or lack > > thereof) of a List-ID header. Also, by filtering on those (To, Cc), it > > works 100% of the time - even if the above recipe deletes the list copy > > if it came in second. :-) > > For a nasty example, I hate it when people BCC mailing lists. Then > the To and CC fields are not able to reply to the mailing list because > they don't include it. But since List-Post is added by the mailing > list that value is correct. But that is an example of something that > shouldn't be happening. Many lists block bcc to the list since that > is an anti-spam strategy too. > > > For myself, this is what I use specifically for the Debian users list: > > ... > > It will pretty much catch the string being looked for if it shows up > > *anywhere* in the message headers. :-) Since I've never filtered based > > on a header which may-or-may-not be there, deleting the second, > > duplicate copy of a message has never caused a problem even if that one > > was the list-processed copy. > > > > In fact, I would argue that using the above filter (TO_) is *less* > > problematic than the method you use, since deleting a duplicate > > Message-ID does have the potential to remove the copy that actually went > > through the list - it doesn't matter which one got to you first, since > > it *still* gets filtered into the correct folder. > > > > But again, it's all a matter of personal taste, personal experiences and > > personal requirements (like I said, I'm on a really old mailing list > > which has never had List-ID headers and most likely hell will freeze > > over before it gets them; the list has been around longer than the RFC > > which defines List-ID). > > Yep. > > > > P.S. Here is the procmail rules I use to file all Debian mailing list > > > messages. > > > > > > :0 > > > * ^List-Id: .*<debian-[-a-zA-Z0-9]+\.lists\.debian\.org> > > > * ^List-Id: .*<debian-\/[-a-zA-Z0-9]+ > > > Lists/debian/$MATCH/ > > > > > > :0 > > > * ^List-Id: .*<[-a-zA-Z0-9]+\.lists\.alioth\.debian\.org> > > > * ^List-Id: .*<\/[-a-zA-Z0-9]+ > > > Lists/debian/$MATCH/ > > > > That's great for filing (and cool to know about, for mailing lists which > > include those standard headers). How does it get rid of the dup when > > someone does a To: the list and Cc: the person on the list he's > > replying to? > > It doesn't. Which is why I noted it as a post script. But it is > related. > > > (Remember, I sent the above recipe because someone was complaining > > about duplicate message, not that they didn't know how to filter > > them into a folder - in essence, you've provided an answer to a > > question that he didn't ask. :-) ) > > Remember that in essence you created a problem for the person using it > that they didn't have before. :-) > > > BTW, in your above example: What is $MATCH set to, and where it it set? > > man procmailrc > > MATCH This variable is assigned to by procmail whenever it > is > told to extract text from a matching regular > expression. > It will contain all text matching the regular > expression > past the `\/' token. > > This is why the regular expression is run twice. Once to determine > that there is a maching string. A second time to set the MATCH > variable to it. > > * ^List-Id: .*<[-a-zA-Z0-9]+\.lists\.alioth\.debian\.org> > * ^List-Id: .*<\/[-a-zA-Z0-9]+ > > Doing this > > * ^List-Id: .*<\/[-a-zA-Z0-9]+\.lists\.alioth\.debian\.org> > > would include all of the rest of the line in the match too. Since I > don't want the .lists.alioth.debian.org part I have a second line that > sets the MATCH without it. > > Bob >
