This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------060803090906080200010009
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


I agree, this is not a SA issue. I confirmed it to myself yesterday when
I splited my original code in four small pieces. The only other thing I
should be investigating in more detail is the
hint posted by jdow

FROM_DAEMON is a keyword in procmail - from man procmailrc:
If the regular expression contains ‚^FROM_DAEMON‚ it will be
substitut-
ed by ‚(^(Mailing-List:|Precedence:.*(junk|bulk|list)|To: Multiple
recipients of |(((Resent-)?(From|Sender)|X-Envelope-From):|>?From
)([^>]*[^(.%@a-z0-9])?(Post(ma?(st(e?r)?|n)|office)|(send)?Mail(er)?
|daemon|m(mdf|ajordomo)|n?uucp|LIST(SERV|proc)|NET SERV|o(wner|ps)
|r(e(quest|sponse)|oot)|b(ounce|bs\.smtp)|echo|mir ror|s(erv(ices?|er)
|mtp(error)?|ystem)|A(dmin(istrator)?|MMGR|utoansw er))(([^).!:a-
z0-9][-_a-z0-9]*)?[%@>\t ][^<)]*(\(.*\).*)?)?$([^>]|$)))‚, which
should
catch mails coming from most daemons (how‚s that for a regular
expression

Though I already have gone through that, but will go over it once more
before I send it to procmailrc mailing list.

Thank you all for you response. I guess we can close this thread here as
my problem does not belong to SA.

-Jai

guenther wrote:
> Please resist the pressing urge to top-post.
>
>
> On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 12:43 -0700, Jai Rangi wrote:
>
>> I can understand your frustration. Did I take you suggestion? yes and
>> no.
>> 1. Made changes in one test account and did not implement on others.
>> Waiting for the problem to be resolved completely before I made this
>> changes in every users procmailrc file.
>>

>
> Ah, nice to see you didn't completely ignore the feedback. So, you do
> have at least two different rc files you are working on -- one with the
> fixed rules, and this extended one...
>
>
>
>> 2. Seriously (and truly) did not believe that this can be part of my
>> problem and I am sure this is not.
>>

>
> It may be related. These rules potentially can have side-effects and
> trigger on mail you didn't intend it to.
>
> Also, most issues I pointed out make it harder to understand the
> receipts. For you, while debugging and trying to understand what
> possibly could have went wrong. And for us, having a brief look at it
> trying to spot issues.
>
> Did you investigate with the notes in mind I pointed out in my first
> post? (Hint, since this seems to be a procmail receipt issue, not a SA
> issue: Before asking procmail folks for help, you'd better fix all
> receipts. They might jump on these, otherwise...)
>
> guenther
>
>
>


--------------060803090906080200010009
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit










I agree, this is not a SA issue. I confirmed it to myself yesterday
when I splited my original code in four small pieces. The only other
thing I should be investigating in more detail is the

hint posted by jdow



FROM_DAEMON is a keyword in procmail - from man procmailrc:


      If the regular expression contains â^FROM_DAEMONâ it will be
substitut-


      ed by â(^(Mailing-List:|Precedence:.*(junk|bulk|list)|To:
Multiple


      recipients of
|(((Resent-)?(From|Sender)|X-Envelope-From):|>?From


     
)([^>]*[^(.%@a-z0-9])?(Post(ma?(st(e?r)?|n)|office)|(send)?Mail(er)?


      |daemon|m(mdf|ajordomo)|n?uucp|LIST(SERV|proc)|NET SERV|o(wner|ps)


     
|r(e(quest|sponse)|oot)|b(ounce|bs\.smtp)|echo|mir ror|s(erv(ices?|er)


      |mtp(error)?|ystem)|A(dmin(istrator)?|MMGR|utoansw er))(([^).!:a-


      z0-9][-_a-z0-9]*)?[%@>\t
][^<)]*(\(.*\).*)?)?$([^>]|$)))â, which should


      catch mails coming from most daemons (howâs that for a regular


      expression



Though I already have gone through that, but will go over it once more
before I send it to procmailrc mailing list.



Thank you all for you response. I guess we can close this thread here
as my problem does not belong to SA.



-Jai



guenther wrote:

Please resist the pressing urge to top-post.


On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 12:43 -0700, Jai Rangi wrote:


I can understand your frustration. Did I take you suggestion? yes and
no.
1. Made changes in one test account and did not implement on others.
Waiting for the problem to be resolved completely before I made this
changes in every users procmailrc file.



Ah, nice to see you didn't completely ignore the feedback. So, you do
have at least two different rc files you are working on -- one with the
fixed rules, and this extended one...




2. Seriously (and truly) did not believe that this can be part of my
problem and I am sure this is not.



It may be related. These rules potentially can have side-effects and
trigger on mail you didn't intend it to.

Also, most issues I pointed out make it harder to understand the
receipts. For you, while debugging and trying to understand what
possibly could have went wrong. And for us, having a brief look at it
trying to spot issues.

Did you investigate with the notes in mind I pointed out in my first
post? (Hint, since this seems to be a procmail receipt issue, not a SA
issue: Before asking procmail folks for help, you'd better fix all
receipts. They might jump on these, otherwise...)

guenther







--------------060803090906080200010009--