Ian Dunkin <imd1707(_at_)glaxowellcome(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> writes:
Was there an intended change in the logic associated with the `A' flag
(ALSO_NEXT_RECIPE) somewhere between procmail 2.90 and 3.11?
Migrating from existing use of 2.90 to 3.11pre7, I find that recipes
such as:
:0 H
* somepattern
:0 BA
* someotherpattern
filename
..no longer work as they did before --to continue to the second part of
the recipe on a match on the first-- and if this matches, to write to
`filename'. Rather, procmail 3.11pre7 simply matches on the first part
of the recipe and writes to file `:0'.
Now, by introducing nesting with `{}' brackets I can achieve what I
want, but the man pages still seem to suggest that the above usage
should work?
No. Every recipe must have a non-empty action. The change in procmail
was for it to now skip blank lines in search of that non-empty action.
I think procmail should have been logging warnings about empty actions
lines, but I'm not actually sure: it's hard to mentally apply diffs
early in the morning. Whether or not it logged a warning, that set of
lines does not match the syntax for valid procmail recipes shown on
the procmailrc(5) manpage.
A nesting block is the correct setup.
Philip Guenther