Just to clarify, as the original poster:

I was talking about X-Commands in the body of the message. I don't think I can, using GroupWise, control or change any headers other than the To:, Subject:, CC:, and BCC: headers.

I'll be putting Richard's suggestion, using the perl script, into effect this week, and will report back on my success in doing in, and if it needs any further modifications.

Thank you all very much for your suggestions and clarifying comments.

-Kevin Zembower

...

...

"Richard G. Ball" Richard_Ball@merck.com 07/17/02 12:17PM >>>

On [2002-Jul-17] Tim Pierce twp@rootsweb.com wrote:

In article 20020716202554.GA76902@actis2.merck.com, Richard G. Ball

Richard_Ball@merck.com wrote:

...

On [2002-Jul-16] Tim Pierce twp@rootsweb.com wrote:

...

So you could try forcing the issue by breaking the X-Command

into

...

...

these continuation lines yourself well before the 72-character

limit.

...

...

I don't know if SmartList/procmail will actually handle the continuation line correctly, but it seems like it ought to.

If Kevin can't turn off line-wrap he probably can't enforce

headers either :-(

I understood his message to say they were already putting X-Commands in the body.

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."

[example snipped]

So you could try forcing the issue by breaking the X-Command into these continuation lines yourself well before the 72-character

limit.

Which seemed to be asking Kevin to put short *header* lines into the message with whitespace to cause "continuation"?

That was why I emphasized the body-centric approach since Kevin was saying he was using x-commands in the body.

Rich