|
Grex > Helpers > #138: Grex System Problems - Winter 2004/2005 |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 870 responses total. |
keesan
|
|
response 374 of 870:
| 
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:
|
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:
|
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:
|
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:
|
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:
|
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:
|
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:
|
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:
|
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:
|
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:
|
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:
|
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:
|
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:
|
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:
|
Jan 13 05:29 UTC 2005 |
JANC!!
HOW TO YOU GET PARTY TO HOG CPU LIKE HAYZ DID!?!
THANKS
|
naftee
|
|
response 389 of 870:
|
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:
|
Jan 13 06:19 UTC 2005 |
whoa
|
cross
|
|
response 391 of 870:
|
Jan 14 02:40 UTC 2005 |
This response has been erased.
|
keesan
|
|
response 392 of 870:
|
Jan 14 04:16 UTC 2005 |
cpu usage about 96%: nethack and party - 3 processes split 3 ways.
|
mfp
|
|
response 393 of 870:
|
Jan 14 04:17 UTC 2005 |
If you don't calm down, I'll split you three ways.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 394 of 870:
|
Jan 14 11:46 UTC 2005 |
Thanks for the hint, Dan; reduces the guilt of killing processes. :)
|
albaugh
|
|
response 395 of 870:
|
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:
|
Jan 14 18:00 UTC 2005 |
The new Grex operating system allows account names to be up to 32 characters
long, apparently.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 397 of 870:
|
Jan 14 18:14 UTC 2005 |
Since I don't recall that being announced before or after nextgrex was
implemented, I'm wondering if that is something we can arbitrarily enforce.
There is no reason that we can't keep the newuser mechanism from limiting IDs
to 8 characters, even if the O/S doesn't have that restriction. I'll take
this up in coop.
|
scott
|
|
response 398 of 870:
|
Jan 14 20:31 UTC 2005 |
Doesn't seem like a problem to me... my usual PhPBB nickname is around 10
characters long.
|