On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 10:11:34PM +0200, Dallman Ross wrote:
On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 08:17:12PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 07:24:14PM +0200, Dallman Ross wrote:
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 11:34:15PM +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
And how do I know that the message was not delivered elsewhere? ;)
:0 e
* LASTFOLDER ?? .
$FALLBACK
That's a joke, right? The subject is called "LASTFOLDER blues"
because LASTFOLDER cannot be used for that query ...
Addressing only this one point for now: no, not a joke. The
LASTFOLDER is used here to make sure we want to exit procmail after
this recipe; that is, the last recipe did attempt to deliver with
one of our optional multi-delivery recipes.
In this case in my setup it will be always set, so the rule above is
still of no use to me.
If there was no error as shown by the e-flag, then the most recent
LASTFOLDER delivery did in fact succeed, so there is at least
one good copy of the message saved. I have already tested this
algorithm.
Yes, but only the very last one, so the pairing per recipe is not
avoided.
Now I'll remove write perms from the target folders:
9:53pm [~/Mail] 756[0]> chmod u-w Folder*
Try only the first one, the error condition is silently lost.
So you do need to test each instance of delivering recipes.
Well, that's what I've been saying since the first post.
You could make it look cleaner by using an INCLUDERC.
^^^^^^^ ???
{ MYDELIVERY = FolderA INCLUDERC = fallback.rc }
Apart from "cleaner" being
:0 c:
* cond1
do1
the above (remember each and every recipe needs it) kills procmail
performance.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
pgpcbxsis8Xge.pgp
Description: PGP signature
____________________________________________________________
procmail mailing list Procmail homepage: http://www.procmail.org/
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail