Trying to prevent my procmail 8MB core dumps.

I posted a few days ago about 8MB core dumps I'm getting, with the 
INCLUDERC recipe that causes the dumps.  I've played with it some 
more, and this is the current version:

#
#  Handle potentially Junk E-Mail from mailmasher.com
#
# Match on any email to or from mailmasher.com
:0 H
* (^Return-Path:|^Received:|^Message-ID:|^Reply-To:|^From:).*[(@ 
](mailmasher\.com) 
{ 
# log all matches
 :0 c
 mm_junk.log

# Is the complaint feature turned on?
 :0 c
 * COMPLAIN ?? on
 {
 # if so, first make a temporary copy of the email
 :0 c
 | cat > $MAILDIR/spam.tmp
 # then form a reply from just the header, with appropriate substitutions; 
concatenate an autoresponse 
 # message on the end of it;  add a copy of the original email, with full 
headers; then add a .signature 
 # and email it back to sender and to a fixed list of Cc: addresses 

:0 ch
  | ($FORMAIL -rk -i"Subject: HI, MailMasher user!  I'll get back to you." \ 
-i"Errors-To: tbetz(_at_)pobox(_dot_)com" -i"Reply-To: 
tbetz(_at_)pobox(_dot_)com" \
-A"X-Loop: tbetz(_at_)panix(_dot_)com" -i"Cc: 
tbetz(_at_)pobox(_dot_)com,numnuts(_at_)mailmasher(_dot_)com" -X ""; \
      cat $PMDIR/autoresponse.mm $MAILDIR/spam.tmp; \
      echo "";\
      echo "-- ";\
      cat $HOME/.signature \
     ) | $SENDMAIL -oi -t
 }
 # Indicate that a match was found -- the value of $FOUND is later
 # assigned to $DELIVER 
FOUND=on
}

All the other INCLUDERC files are modeled on this one.

Examining verbose procmail logs of tests generating core dumps, I see 
procmail forking processes for `:0 c' recipes, which continue to 
execute while succeeding recipes are being launched.  I can imagine that 
enough of these would cause the symptoms I am seeing.

I need to use the `:0 c' construct because one email might contain 
triggers for many recipes, and I don't want the first recipe it 
triggers to cause procmail to exit -- but I also don't want procmail 
to dump 8MB cores every time I run it!

Is there a way I may instruct procmail to complete one recipe before
launching the next one, so they run and release memory sequentially?

Thanks.
--
|We have tried ignorance for/      Tom Betz      (914) 375-1510        |
|a very long time, and it's/  Want to sent me email? Read this first:  |
|time we tried education. /<http://www.panix.com/~tbetz/mailterms.html>|
|<http://www.pobox.com/~tbetz>\ I mock up my reactive mind twice daily.|