http://www.exim.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=395
Summary: headers add/remove in user filters
Product: Exim
Version: 4.63
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Keywords: work:medium
Severity: wishlist
Priority: medium
Component: Filters
AssignedTo: ph10@hermes.cam.ac.uk
ReportedBy: holmgren@lysator.liu.se
QAContact: exim-dev@exim.org
It would be very convenient if users could add/remove headers within Exim
filters, instead of having to pipe the mail through procmail or formail and
back to Exim. Semantically, I think it should be as if each "headers add" and
"headers remove" command appends to the headers_add and headers_remove options
of the corresponding router. If the user adds a header and later in the same
filter wants it removed, he should have used control structures to avoid adding
it in the first place.
This is of course not trivial; if it were, it would already be implemented. The
commands do *not* work the same in the system filter.
Security considerations: The same header checks as for incoming local messages
from untrusted users should probably be performed, at least if the message is
going to leave the system.
See also bug 354.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
--
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
Summary: headers add/remove in user filters
Product: Exim
Version: 4.63
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Keywords: work:medium
Severity: wishlist
Priority: medium
Component: Filters
AssignedTo: ph10@hermes.cam.ac.uk
ReportedBy: holmgren@lysator.liu.se
QAContact: exim-dev@exim.org
It would be very convenient if users could add/remove headers within Exim
filters, instead of having to pipe the mail through procmail or formail and
back to Exim. Semantically, I think it should be as if each "headers add" and
"headers remove" command appends to the headers_add and headers_remove options
of the corresponding router. If the user adds a header and later in the same
filter wants it removed, he should have used control structures to avoid adding
it in the first place.
This is of course not trivial; if it were, it would already be implemented. The
commands do *not* work the same in the system filter.
Security considerations: The same header checks as for incoming local messages
from untrusted users should probably be performed, at least if the message is
going to leave the system.
See also bug 354.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
--
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##