On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, era eriksson wrote:
Sorry for the massive delay in replying to this. I wanted to post the solution for the archives. Era was correct in that I was not MATCHing correctly. Basicly I already had the multiple Re Re Re problem solved, but I was getting extra spaces in my Subject. I'm cross-posting to the smartlist list as well, since this recipe is used in my rc.local.s20 file. Background info follow the working recipe.
Here it is:
################################ # :0 # is the subject tagged already? If not, capture it * ! ^Subject:.*[The\ Box].* * ^Subject: [ ]*/[^ ].*$ { # strip off any leading "Re: " strings CURSUB=`echo $MATCH | sed -e 's/R[Ee]:[ ]*//'` :0 fhw | formail -I"Subject: [The Box] $CURSUB" } :0 Efhw # see if it is a tagged reply; if so, move the "Re:" * ^Subject: *(Re: *)+[The\ Box] [ ]*/[^ ].*$ | formail -I"Subject: [The Box] Re: `echo "$MATCH" | \ sed -e 's/^ *R[Ee]: *//g'`" # # NOTE: all above brackets contain <space> <tab> # ###################################
The above recipe takes a subject and prepends [The Box] to it. Any preceeding "Re:"s to [The Box] get moved: Subject: [The Box] Re: test.
Again, sorry for the late reply.
/vjl/
} On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 04:58:00 -0500 (EST), Dallman Ross dman@nomotek.com } wrote: } >> I'm having a problem with the follow recipe under procmail v3.10 } } (That's an awfully old version, but I haven't been following this } thread -- or the list -- so perhaps this has been noted alrady.) } } >> * ^Subject: */.*$ } > No need for the trailing `$', though it doesn't change anything } > except perhaps the slowing of things down by a tiny, tiny } > increment. } } Actually, it will include the trailing newline in MATCH, which may or } may not be what you're after. But the " *" before the / doesn't skip } any spaces. That's because the / operator changes how things are } matched. You probably want "^Subject:[ ]*/[^ ].*" with tabs and } spaces in between the square brackets. } } $ cat <<'HERE' >~/scratch/r } > SHELL=/bin/sh } > :0 } > * ^Subject: */.* } > { LOG="MATCH='$MATCH' } > " } } > :0 } > /dev/null } > HERE } } $ while read subject; do } > echo "Subject: $subject" | procmail ~/scratch/r } > done <<'HERE' } > subject } > subject } > } > this is a test } > HERE } MATCH=' subject' } MATCH=' subject' } MATCH=' ' } MATCH=' this is a test' } } >> { # strip off any leading "Re: " strings } >> CURSUB=`echo $MATCH | sed -e 's/^ *R[Ee]: *//g'` } > The above line is a problem. You are telling sed to find multiple } > instances of a line's beginning, for one; but there will only be } > one match of a line's beginning. So the g-flag is useless with the } > leading caret. } } I'd imagine the intent is to remove repeated Re: prefixes. The regular } expression asks for space or beginning of line immediately before the } R, which is not captured by your updated proposal. } } Try this instead: } } CURSUB=`echo "$MATCH" | sed -e 's/^(R[Ee]:[ ]*)*//'` } } } It looks for and replaces repeated "Re: " prefixes at beginning of } line (i.e beginning of the extracted, now hopefully canonicalized } Subject). } } > Second, you've already stripped away leading spaces up above in your } > original match of the subject. So we don't need the ` *' after the } > caret that we also didn't need. } } (No, that was not true with the earlier regex. See above.) } } > Btw, sed doesn't need an -e for just one expression - though it } > doesn't hurt anything. } } (I use it routinely because it's easy to forget later if you make } modifications to the sed script.) } } > My second cup of coffee has not helped me wake up enough to allow me to } > have had light shed on what you're doing here exactly. I see in general } > terms, but don't follow your heuristic that requires munging the subject } > both in the main recipe and in the "Else" (E-flag) recipe. Maybe a } > flow-chart on the back of a napkin would help - either you or me, or both } > of us. :-) Basically, though, try to think through an algorithm that } > only needs that mess once. :-) } ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ } Agree with this. } } I believe Eli the Bearded once posted a recipe which basically solved } this even for pathological cases -- I'd go to the archives for a } solution; this is by no means a new topic. } } Hope this helps, } } /* era */ } }