hampi at rootshell.be
Thu Nov 18 19:56:26 CET 2004
On Nov 18 at 00:30, Dallman Ross spoke:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 11:35:49PM +0100, Hanspeter Roth wrote:
> > On Nov 17 at 19:31, Dallman Ross spoke:
> > > If he wants to remove the headers, he can read "man formail".
> > >
> > > :0 fw hi
> > > * ^X-Spam-
> > > | formail -I X-Spam-
> > This probably adds some X-Spam- headers. But that doesn't help me.
> Perhaps you might wish to *read* what I typed, HR. "If he
> wants to remove the headers . . ." Now, why would you think
> from that that I told you how to *add* some headers?
> (And typing "man formail" would not be so difficult, would it?)
The formail man page is confusing for me. But in fact those headers
don't bother me. It's the message that has been turned into an
> Since what SP does is configurable based on who ran it in
> the first place and since SP does different things depending
I guess SP is some kind of SpamAssassin.
> on what version the person running it is using it, I think
> you might have a mess on your hands trying to undo all those
> things without SA and without perl. But in any case, though
> there might be a way to strip out all that other stuff, I don't
> know that it's a procmail issue. Maybe you should ask on the
No, it's not a procmail issue. But in fact I thought somebody could
point me to a different tool.
> SA list?
I tried to ask them too. But they assume everybody has access to the
> Otoh, if the original message really is inside, you conceivably
> *could* figure out some incredibly hoary way to do it in procmail.
> It seems like the wrong tool, however.
I don't want to do it by procmail directly. I just want to pipe it
to another tool.
> One tool that could be useful here is reformime, which you
Ok. I'll try to take a look at reformime. It seems to me it's part
More information about the procmail