Re: [PLUG] enough with OT

[bergman@merctech.com]

In the message dated: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 14:20:03 EST,
The pithy ruminations from Eric Hidle on 
<Re: [PLUG] enough with OT> were:
=> I was thinking, is it possible for the mailer to detect [OT] in the 

Yes, FSVO "the mailer". If you mean the MUA (including tools like procmail and 
formail in the MUA chain), sure, it's pretty easy. In fact, it would be a 
useful and on-topic discussion.

If you mean that the list manager (mailman) should change the headers on
incoming mail in response to "OT" subjects, before forwarding the message out to
the list, then I'd strongly argue that it shouldn't do any more header
manipulation (particularly Reply-To munging) than it already does.



=> subject and set the reply-to accordingly? That might be a useful tool if 
=> it were possible..


Here's an example, using procmail and formail. This is an untested fragment of
a ruleset, designed to run on the user's local machine:

	:0
		* ^From: \/.*
		{
			sender=$MATCH
		}

	:0
		* ^Subject.*\[OT\]
			| formail -rt -I "Reply-To: $sender" 

The missing part of this rule would come immediately after the call to 
formail...the resulting (altered) message would need to be delivered to the 
user, which is somewhat dependant on the user's mail reader.

While not Linux-specific (ie., this could run on a Solaris/BSD/SCO/OS-X/etc. 
machine), I hope this is a bit more on-topic. :)


=> 
=> E

Personally, I think that the off-topic traffic has been minimal, clearly 
labeled, and not so far off topic that I see any need to manage those posts 
with more than the "d" key. Hey, none of it's about politics!

Mark

-----
Mark Bergman    Biker, Rock Climber, Unix mechanic, IATSE #1 Stagehand

http://wwwkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=bergman%40merctech.com

I want a newsgroup with a infinite S/N ratio! Now taking CFV on:
rec.motorcycles.stagehands.pet-bird-owners.pinballers.unix-supporters
15+ So Far--Want to join? Check out: http://www.panix.com/~bergman 


=> 
=> gyoza@comcast.net wrote:
=> 
=> >Ya know?  Still, I think this offlist approach might be good.  I'm doing
=> >it now.
=> >
=> >
=> >Eric Hidle wrote:
=> >
=> >  
=> >
=> >>I don't see what either of your posts has to do with Linux. Could we
=> >>please keep the discussion on-topic? Grousing about messages you don't
=> >>like isn't really on-topic, now is it?
=> >>:)
=> >>E
=> >>
=> >>gyoza@comcast.net wrote:
=> >>
=> >>    
=> >>
=> >>>Maybe the policy could be that any topic labeled OT will be responded to
=> >>>offlist?  After this one.  heh
=> >>>
=> >>>
=> >>>Toby DiPasquale wrote:
=> >>>
=> >>> 
=> >>>
=> >>>      
=> >>>
=> >>>>All,
=> >>>>
=> >>>>The last bunch of messages have been off-topic. Can we please keep it
=> >>>>on-topic? I'm sure we all have enough mail to read and we all
=> >>>>subscribed
=> >>>>to this list to hear and discuss Linux issues. I understand that
=> >>>>this list
=> >>>>has many people knowledgable in a number of interesting areas but
=> >>>>this is
=> >>>>not the appropriate list for queries about Comcast, Verizon, etc.
=> >>>>Thanks.
=> >>>>



___________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group         --        http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion  --   http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug