[H-GEN] Open source firm releases patch for IE spoofing flaw

[Greg Black]

On 2003-12-31, Robert Brockway wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Greg Black wrote:
> 
> > Anybody who wants such a feature can add it with a trivial
> > procmail recipe; this is, after all, the way that Unix users
> 
> I use procmail a bit but don't consider myself a guru by any stretch of
> the imagination.  I decided to take up this challenge to produce a
> procmail rule to add a Reply-To header for mail coming from General or
> Chat.
> 
> Greg was right, it wasn't hard although it was fiddly.

:-)

> Ok first off let me say that no one should ever, ever!, add a procmail
> rule to a live mail account without testing it first.  It's too easy to
> end up in a situation which will bring you to tears.  The procmailex man
> page contains info on how to setup a "safety net" but I recommend a
> dedicated test account.

Yes, I think I advocated a test account myself -- and it's the
only way to test stuff that could easily see you losing actual
email that you wanted if you make some little mistake.

Trust me, procmail recipes are really easy to get wrong ...

> Here are the rules I added to ~/.procmailrc to set a Reply-To header for
> the lists:
> 
> # Add Reply-To to HUMBUG General list
> :0 cfw
> * ^X-BeenThere:.*general at lists.humbug.org.au.*
> | formail -a "Reply-To: general at lists.humbug.org.au"
> 
> # Add Reply-To to HUMBUG Chat list
> :0 cfw
> * ^X-BeenThere:.*chat at lists.humbug.org.au.*
> | formail -a "Reply-To: chat at lists.humbug.org.au"

Just in case readers are not familiar with formail, I'll point
out that this rule does what I suggested -- it only adds the
Reply-To header if there's not one there already, so any special
wishes of the message originator are still respected.  See, it
was easy ...

Cheers, Greg