what's the difference between these two procmail filter rules?
- To: mutt <mutt-users@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: what's the difference between these two procmail filter rules?
- From: phyrster <phyrster@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 11:23:10 +0800
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:user-agent; b=sCQ17pUhUj7B4fK8KLAIJMDFnME6RfsASxxmmd9jtWkXS0jPRIDRwkH+RNehyeuZpfXObnw2RMLC+Xu3Q3LGz5ObPLcv9qjM+Q7VCht4WNoYXo066k8+xQfloV/4RCyxOoo7Q/OS/Y1kE+WOx3LRYvMCFhyOieFQl6hsRQ3R0vI=
- List-unsubscribe: <mailto:mutt-users-request@mutt.org?body=unsubscribe>
- Mail-followup-to: mutt <mutt-users@xxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-mutt-users@xxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
Hi mutters in mud,
In procmailrc , there is two rules like this:
Rule one:
:0:
* ^X-Mailing-List:.*.mutt\.org
mutt
Rule two:
:0:
* ^TO_.*mutt-users@mutt\.org
mutt
If the first one is used, then mail from this list won't be filtered and the
second one works well. However, the first rule works well with debian
mailing list.
What's the difference between these rules? I think the first one is better
but why it fails?
regards
bxuef
--
dhammapada says:
He who by here and now abandoning sensuality, has gone forth a homeless
wanderer, the search for pleasure extinguished - that is what I call a
brahmin. 415