From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from gatech.edu (gatech.edu [128.61.1.1]) by werple.mira.net.au (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id HAA07721 for ; Fri, 19 May 1995 07:54:45 +1000 Received: from math (math.skiles.gatech.edu) by gatech.edu with SMTP id AA11887 (5.65c/Gatech-10.0-IDA for ); Thu, 18 May 1995 17:55:23 -0400 Received: by math (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA12292; Thu, 18 May 1995 17:54:00 -0400 Resent-Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 17:52:49 -0400 Old-Return-Path: Message-Id: <9505182152.AA08445@redwood.skiles.gatech.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 1.5.3 12/28/94 To: mdb@cdc.noaa.gov (Mark Borges) Cc: ZSH mailing list Subject: Re: new zsh mailing list up and running In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 18 May 1995 10:30:21 MDT." <9505181630.AA20146@revelle> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 17:52:49 -0400 From: Richard Coleman Resent-Message-Id: <"OZ1s4.0.-_2.t7ykl"@math> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/6 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu > I know this is not a zsh question, but... > > I've never used it (procmail) before -- I've been using elm's filter(1) -- > but this looks much more flexible and powerful. I've skimmed through the > man pages, and I think I understand what you're doing below except for: Although a lot of people use elm filter, it is not a very good mail filter utility. Procmail is definitely the best, probably followed by mailagent. Mailagent is totally written in perl, so is a good choice for perl hackers. Procmail is actually a fairly general purpose mail manipulation and filter language. As an example of its power, the mailing list manager I'm using for zsh-{announce,users,workers} called SmartList is primarily written in procmail (and some shell scripts and a couple of small utilities written in C). My procmail setup has an auto-responder built into it. If you send me e-mail with any of the following subjects (only one per mail message): get procmailrc # get a copy of my .procmailrc get zsh faq # get a copy of zsh FAQ get pgp key # get my pgp key then my procmail mail gremlin will automatically send a response. > RC> :0 w: zsh-announce/$LOCKEXT > RC> * ^Resent-from: *zsh-announce > RC> | rcvstore +zsh-announce <<<<---- > > I gather you're filtering the mail through some external program (rcvstore) > we don't have. Why? If you have time, can you explain a bit more what the > above recipe accomplishes? Rcvstore is a program that comes with the mh mail system. This is only necessary if you are using the mh mail system. Mh and procmail work very well together. I use the exmh front-end to mh. The combination exmh+mh+procmail is one of the best for dealing with high volumes of mail. In mh, a folder is actually a directory and mail messages are keep in individual files, rather than concatenating them together. Sometimes this is a problem for people who have quotas on the number of files that they can have (this is to prevent i-node depletion) since this will limit the number of mail messages you can keep around. It also makes your e-mail setup incompatible with elm or mailtool. Personally I like this since it makes it easy to write scripts that manipulate your mail I have zsh shell functions that given the sequence number of a mail message, will slurp in a mail message from my zsh-{list,workers} mail folder and patch the zsh baseline source. > Also, in contrast to zsh-list, SmartList doesn't appear to provide a `Reply-To:' > header. Consequently, replies not go to the author and not to the > list. There was some lengthy discussion a while back about whether `Reply-To:' > should be set, and if so what it should be set to. The consensus was to > include it, and to set it to zsh-list. Do you not want to do this, or is > there another way? I can never decide which way I think is best. The problem with setting the Reply-To field back to the list is that this strips out information that sometimes is necessary if you do want to respond directly to the sender rather than the list. Also there is the risk that people will accidently send things to the list that they didn't intend for everyone to see. I think the best thing to do is continue with the current configuration for now and see how it works. If it turns out to be inconvenient, then I can easily change it. rc zsh@math.gatech.edu