On Wed, May 31, 2000 at 11:55:37AM +1000, Anand Kumria wrote:
| > | :0:
| > | * ^((List-Id|X-(Mailing-)?List):(.*[<]\/[^>]*))
[...]
| > Your recipe is incomplete. Many (most) lists don't put in a List-Id or
| > X-(Mailing-)?List header. I filter this on To: line first and when that
| > misses I usually fall back onto the Sender: line. For slug I have:
|
| The recipie is fine, it is just that only `newer' mailing lists are likely
| to have implemented RFC2369. Slug, unfortunately, isn't one of them.
I never said it was wrong, just incomplete. Witness that SLUG doesn't
trigger it.
[...]
| Using regular expressions beings that down to 1 sender and 2 different `To:'
| addresses.
I like precision in these things, hence the enumeration.
| Filtering on sender is bad because if a mailing list moves
| your filters break.
Which in my case drops them into the ProbablySpam folder, where I'll
find them next time I purge it (or if the list goes suddenly quiet).
| Filtering on To: is bad because when you start to have
| people sending Bcc to a lists
A horrible habit.
| (or list to list discussions). Having a
| constant identifier helps.
Indeed.
--
Cameron Simpson, DoD#743 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zip.com.au/~cs/
He who loses control ... loses.
- Det. Frank Pembleton, Homicide: Life on the Street
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux Users Group Mailing List - http://www.slug.org.au
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe in the text
