You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   125-149   150-174   175-199   200-224 
 225-249   250-274   275-299   300-324   325-349   347-371   372-396   397-421   422-446 
 447-471   472-496   497-521   522-546   547-571   572-596   597-621   622-646   647-671 
 672-696   697-721   722-746   747-771   772-796   797-821   822-846   847-870   
 
Author Message
25 new of 870 responses total.
keesan
response 372 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 12 19:48 UTC 2005

Minor problem with Mike's filter:  Extraneous filter-flag ignored.  Does this
mean one of the characters in :0fw should be removed?  The filter works
anyway, letting through a small mail but diverting a big one.
blaise
response 373 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 12 19:55 UTC 2005

From the Procmail Quick Start
(http://www.ii.com/internet/robots/procmail/qs):

Matching a Word

If you want a recipe to match only the word test, rather than the string
test, surround test with the Procmail word delimiters \< and \> as in
the following:

:0:
* ^Subject:.*\<test\>
IN-testing

[end quote]

So to do what Rane is looking for would be

:0:
* ^Subject:.*\<cum\>
/dev/null

as a Procmail rule.

I highly recommend that anyone who wants to use Procmail for filtering
(whether spam or otherwise) read the Quick Start; it is very well
arranged to walk people new to Procmail through setting it up.
keesan
response 374 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 12 20:02 UTC 2005

Thanks for that info.  I have not needed to filter on cum because mail
containing it includes so many other easily filtered strings.

I removed fw from Mike's filter and it still works and no longer tells me
there is an extraneous filter-flag:  First line :0, second line * > 100000
third line /dev/null (I cannot type a colon at line beginning here).
blaise
response 375 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 12 20:03 UTC 2005

The best I can tell, you don't need either the f or the w flag in the
size-catching recipe.  Those are only needed when the action of the
recipe uses an external program, from what I can find.
blaise
response 376 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 12 20:04 UTC 2005

Note that the recipe I gave will match "cum" *in the subject line only*,
and *only as a word by itself*.  (For example, I didn't want to match
"cumulative"...)
keesan
response 377 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 12 20:09 UTC 2005

Handy recipe, thanks. 
I just replaced /dev/null with ! followed by my other email address and
the log file now tells me it sent my mail over 100K to
Folder: /usr/sbin/senmail -oi keesan@ (my other address).
Does this mean it was forwarded to that address?  It was not there when I
checked shortly afterwards.  mailsize was 267K.
But if Grex puts a limit on outgoing mail size will this no longer work?
At that point I guess I could just remove the filter and let friends write
to ask me why their mail bounced.  Or is the limit only on mail going into
the inbox, not mail being forwarded?

Is there some way to filter on words starting in c.al so as to dump mail with
variations on cialis but not special?  

Perhaps we should have a new mail filtering item, at least until grex gets
a spam filter working again.  
keesan
response 378 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 12 20:11 UTC 2005

I was able to forward the large mail to my other address with
First line:  :0
Second line:  * > 100000
THird line:  !  (my other address)
It would be nice if this continued to work after grex got back its mail size
limits so that big mails would go to me instead of the sender.
mcnally
response 379 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 12 20:18 UTC 2005

  Sorry about the extraneous flags, I just quickly adapted from another
  recipe in my .procmailrc and since I'm at work I didn't have time to
  test fully.

  Glad it helped, though..
blaise
response 380 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 12 20:21 UTC 2005

Yes, you can filter on words starting in c.al, but that will catch (for
example) "challenge"...  If you really want to, it would be "\<c.al". 
(The \< and \> don't need to be matched, any more than ^ and $ need to.
 \< means the start of a word, just as ^ means the start of a line, and
\> means the end of a word, just as $ means the end of a line.)
keesan
response 381 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 12 21:18 UTC 2005

So how does \< differ from '\  ' (a blank space)?
TO whoever said r and R behave differently in pine (one replies to everyone
and one to just the sender) they behave the same for me.  Maybe you have
configured your Pine to act differently.
I was expecting my new filter to forward a mail with attached .tif file
someone said he just sent me here, but he forgot to attach the .tif file.
janc
response 382 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 12 21:23 UTC 2005

Could we find another item to discuss spam filter rules and procmail syntax?
I'm scanning this item looking for system bugs to fix, and wonderful though
procmail is, it isn't really in that category, and it's about half this item.
Thanks.
blaise
response 383 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 12 21:29 UTC 2005

Sorry, I suggested that and then continued to answer the questions. 
I'll stop now.
janc
response 384 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 12 21:45 UTC 2005

I fixed the https/http problem in vanilla.

Backtalk's "read since" logic has been flakey for a while.  I need to
revisit it.
albaugh
response 385 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 12 23:05 UTC 2005

> TO whoever said r and R behave differently in pine (one replies to everyone
 and one to just the sender) they behave the same for me. <

I didn't say that about pine, I said that about mail.  Yes, the little ole,
stupid, command line oriented vanilla mail reader/sender.
keesan
response 386 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 13 04:11 UTC 2005

Is there some way to get Pine to stop offering to reply to all recipients?
gelinas
response 387 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 13 05:14 UTC 2005

No, there isn't, Sindi.  Since it doesn't have separate commands for "reply
to all" and "reply to sender," it has to ask every time.

Dave, my comment on reading the ft help was directed as much at myself as it
was at you.  I also read it, without finding the answer to date ranges. :(
naftee
response 388 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 13 05:29 UTC 2005

JANC!!

HOW TO YOU GET PARTY TO HOG CPU LIKE HAYZ DID!?!

THANKS
naftee
response 389 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 13 05:51 UTC 2005

load averages:  7.91,  6.84,  4.86                                    
00:50:38
182 processes: 6 running, 172 idle, 3 stopped, 1 zombie
CPU states: 34.3% user,  0.0% nice, 65.1% system,  0.6% interrupt,  0.0% idle
Memory: Real: 76M/219M act/tot  Free: 1293M  Swap: 0K/3072M used/tot

  PID USERNAME PRI NICE  SIZE   RES STATE WAIT     TIME    CPU COMMAND
14640 azure     64    0 1460K 1680K run   -       64:46 33.69% nethack
29978 _mysql     2    0   34M   17M sleep poll     4:35  0.00% mysqld
32358 _syslogd   2    0  164K  484K sleep poll     3:38  0.00% syslogd
 3601 named      2    0 2620K 2968K sleep select   2:55  0.00% named
20957 exim       2    0  580K  696K sleep select   1:17  0.00% exim-4.42-2


whoa
mfp
response 390 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 13 06:19 UTC 2005

whoa
cross
response 391 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 14 02:40 UTC 2005

This response has been erased.

keesan
response 392 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 14 04:16 UTC 2005

cpu usage about 96%:  nethack and party - 3 processes split 3 ways.
mfp
response 393 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 14 04:17 UTC 2005

If you don't calm down, I'll split you three ways.
gelinas
response 394 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 14 11:46 UTC 2005

Thanks for the hint, Dan; reduces the guilt of killing processes. :)
albaugh
response 395 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 14 17:55 UTC 2005

> #11 of 30: by JERKS (qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq)

How is it that the grex userID, shown between the (), can be more than 8
characters?  Is that an edit that Backtalk allows?
aruba
response 396 of 870: Mark Unseen   Jan 14 18:00 UTC 2005

The new Grex operating system allows account names to be up to 32 characters
long, apparently.
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   125-149   150-174   175-199   200-224 
 225-249   250-274   275-299   300-324   325-349   347-371   372-396   397-421   422-446 
 447-471   472-496   497-521   522-546   547-571   572-596   597-621   622-646   647-671 
 672-696   697-721   722-746   747-771   772-796   797-821   822-846   847-870   
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss