[Dovecot] [dovecot] - filters

[Karsten Bräckelmann]

On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 19:07 -0600, Rick Romero wrote:
> Oh, I thought the backslash was escaping the / ..  I was just going by  
> an example I had - even though now that I think about it, that really  
> makes no sense.  \o/
> In any case, yes, I want to skip Matching replies, because otherwise  
> you won't match how the system prepends [Dovecot] now.

The "system" (mailman) prepends the tag, if there is none. Period.

You simply cannot make that work exactly the same on your end. Because
it is the mailing list software, that does it currently -- before
sending out the mail. Exactly the same for everyone. If *you* will do
it, it will break the exact moment someone else does it on his end, too.
But does not use the exact same recipe as you do...

Of course, if you happen to send a mail without the tag, but starting
Re:, mailman will in fact inject the tag before the Re:...

> Subject: Re: This is a test

Re: RE: Re[4]: Re: Fwd: Antw: Re: Real Subject hidden over here

I've seen it all. And even more variants.

> I would think those of us who prefer to have the prefix would want:
> Subject: Re: [Dovecot] This is a test
> and not
> Subject: [Dovecot] Re: This is a test

You will get both. The first one is an example replying, after adding
the tag. The second is an example in your Inbox *shudder* [1] of someone
not adding the stupid tag on his client side end, but you adding it.

> Now, If I replied to the second one, it would become
> Subject: Re: [Dovecot] Re: This is a test

You are free to modify the Subject and get rid of one of those.

You are free to reply to the list, and not Cc me personally. I do read
the list, you know...

> and that would really hose things up.  Of course, were I to do that,  
> YOUR threading might get all hosed up because all of a Sudden there's  
> a subject change.  Yes, I know there's a header for threading, but I'm  
> not sure what MUA's respect it.

ANY even half-decent MUA does respect these headers. References and
In-Reply-To. My threading will not be messed up, even if you change the
Subject entirely.

Of course, my threading is being messed up by someone actually replying,
but not realizing that deleting the entire body and subject will not
generate a "fresh" message, but still is a reply -- but this is an
entirely unrelated story. ;)

> So I think 2 recipes are required -
> 1. Marks 'original' not prefixed Subjects - prefix is '[Dovecot]'
> 2. Marks replied not prefixed Subjects - prefix is 'Re: [Dovecot]'

IMHO, none is required. This whole concept of Subject tagging is utterly
broken and useless. There are headers for that your MDA or MUA can use
for filtering, sorting or any other kind of logic the user requires,
just because he doesn't filter into dedicated folders.

> I assume $MATCH would be the last conditional.

Now you lost me. $MATCH is the content you previously captured with the
\/ start matching here. It is not a condition.

> I think overall - whether we add or remove the prefix via local  
> filter, someone is going to have issues with it :)

True.  There's always someone who will complain.


[1] Yes, I am strictly against keeping ML bulk in your Inbox, just
    because your retarded MUA (which hardly is worth that name) on your
    phone can't handle folders.
    This is an IMAP server list. Do filter server side. No excuse.

-- 
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0. at ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}