procmail
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: ALSO_NEXT_RECIPE

1997-09-24 06:43:05
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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>