"David W. Tamkin" <dattier(_at_)ripco(_dot_)com> writes:
Now, I know that that's the standard way, but I was thinking: if the
duplicates folder is an mbox and if the message does turn out to be a
duplicate, that means getting a lockfile twice instead of once.
Ah, I hadn't thought of that. You're right: your version gets the
efficiency prize for mbox folders.
If the message turns out not to be a duplicate, there's no difference; and
if the duplicates folder is not an mbox and therefore doesn't need a
lockfile, it boils down to a matter of taste. My preference differs from
Philip's: it looks cleaner to me to use one recipe instead of a compound of
two with a copy and to keep the same lockfile while a duplicate is stored.
So, Duncan, which version did you find me readable? The more
straightforward logic of David's version or the idiomatic formail -D
usage of my version?
Philip Guenther
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail