On Fri 24 Sep 1999, Philip Hazel wrote:
>
> The address in X-Mailing-List is not a valid RFC 822 address. Thus your
> call to "foranyaddress" won't work. Hmm. I see that Exim just ignores
> bad addresses. Perhaps it should grumble and defer delivery, but I think
> I didn't make it do that because so many messages have utter junk in
> their headers. See if
>
> X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/6194 <debian-policy@???>
>
> works. That's RFC 822 compliant.
Yes, it does! I didn't grok that foranyaddress expects a valid
RFC 822 address (although that of course should have been clear).
Which raises another question: is "foranyaddress" the only way to loop
over a list of header lines, to test for a given string in any of those
header lines? This is why I used "foranyaddress"; I started off with
just h_cc and h_to, but then I started getting messages that were bcc'ed
to the mailing list. At that point X-Loop was a candidate for testing
against, but that didn't work here where there were two X-Loop headers.
So I tried X-Mailing-List, but as you say that's not a real address.
I need to test multiple header lines, as you typically get messages
that:
- are simply sent directly to the list (To: matches)
- are cc'ed to the list (Cc: matches)
- are bcc'ed to the list (X-Loop or X-Mailing-List or
X-Resent-From or whatever matches)
With multiple mailing lists, the filter gets messy quickly without a
looping mechanism...
Anyway, thanks for your (as always) speedy response!
Paul Slootman
--
home: paul@??? http://www.wurtel.demon.nl/
work: paul@??? http://www.murphy.nl/
debian: paul@??? http://www.debian.org/
isdn4linux: paul@??? http://www.isdn4linux.de/
