Tickets :: Comment on [#5974] Inconsistent vacation excludes

* Your Email Address
* Spam protection	Enter the letters below: .__.. ..___. ..__ \| \|\ /[__ \ /[__) \|__\ \/ \| \/ \|
Comment	>> I should have added my own opinion. :) > > > > :) > > > >> I'm against using the Spam header because different spam filters use > >> different headers and with Ingo it's really easy to have a spam > >> filter rule before the vacation rule, so this is redundant. In the > >> worst case it even applies a different spam rule than what the user > >> usually does. > > > > That makes sense. Everything but spam rules, then? > > > >> Some additional information: procmail's FROM_DAEMON is a shortcut for: > >> (^(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)\|NETSERV\|o(wner\|ps) > >> \|r(e(quest\|sponse)\|oot)\|b(ounce\|bs\.smtp)\|echo\|mirror\|s(erv(ices?\|er) > >> \|mtp(error)?\|ystem)\|A(dmin(istrator)?\|MMGR\|utoanswer))(([^).!:a- > >> z0-9][-_a-z0-9])?[%@>\t ][^<)]($.$.)?)?$([^>]\|$))) > >> > >> Author's comment: how's that for a regular expression :-) > > > > Woof.
Attachment
Watch this ticket