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. > > > > 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 :-)
Attachment
Watch this ticket