When Tim said, : I understood his message to say they were already putting X-Commands : in the body. Richard asked, | Oh. Then why did you say: | | On [2002-Jul-16] Tim Pierce <twp@rootsweb.com> wrote: | > It's supposed to be legal to break headers into multiple lines | > by adding whitespace at the front of each "continuation line." As anyone can tell from my post of a couple hours ago I wouldn't claim to speak for Tim, so I offer this not as an explanation of what he meant but rather as my reason for not seeing any contradiction in the two passages that Richard has quoted from him. When X-Command: is placed at the top of the body, a recipe such as this: :0Bhf * ^^X-Command: | formail -X "" removes the blank line between the original headers and the X-Command:, making the X-Command: line (and any indented continuation lines that follow it consecutively) part of the head, where procmail will find it. The more recent quote from Tim (the one presented higher in this post) describes the message when it leaves the sender's keyboard, before the application of that filter, when X-Command: is still in the body. The older quote (the one appearing later in this post) pertains to the message after it has gone through that filter and X-Command: is now in the head.