On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:48:46PM -0500, David Phillips wrote:
> This is yet another reason why Reply-To munging is bad.
Damn! Dave! What are you doing?! I'm agreeing with you AGAIN! Sooner
or later, I think you're going to convince me that DJB is god or
something!
"Oh Lord, DJB, please forgive us our buffer overflows. And lead us
not into 'Out of Bounds' errors..."
Incidentally, here's a little procmail recipe to help out with the
errant Reply-To Munging lists:
# Rename "Reply-To:" headers that match "To:" headers. Redundant.
:0 fHW
* ^Reply-To:.*\/[-a-zA-Z0-9_:.+=/]+@[-a-zA-Z0-9_:.+=/]+
* $ ^To:.*${MATCH}
| formail -R "Reply-To" "X-Munged-Reply-To"
--
Chad Walstrom <chewie at wookimus.net> http://www.wookimus.net/
assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20030704/dc2ed1b9/attachment.pgp