Thanks again Philip.
>> instead, then there are no problems (apart from an
>> inocuous
>>
>> procmail: Extraneous locallockfile ignored
>>
>> message, which was there before - anyone know why?)
Philip> Looking at the procmail source, this warning only
Philip> occurs if you put a locallockfile on a nested block:
Philip> :0:
Philip> * conditions go here
Philip> {
Philip> # yadah yadah yadh
Philip> }
Philip> Check your other recipes.
It appears the the message is being generated by a
recipe of a slightly different structure:
------------------
:0
* cond1
{
:0 c
* cond3
! someone(_at_)blah(_dot_)blah
:0:
Personal/personal.mail
}
------------------
Is it ok to put
:0
Personal/personal.mail
in the last recipe of the block?
Sacha