Marshal Benton <post_bote(_at_)post(_dot_)com> writes:
I was hoping for a solution that would not effect
procmail. It seems to me that reducing the locking
capabilities of procmail (removing lockf and fcntl)
would oopen the door for other problems.
Could you install under a different name (procmail.nolock?) a second
copy of procmail with kernel locking turned off? The people using
mailtool could then invokethat procmail from a .forward file. They
would lose the ability to easily handle +detail addressing, but few
enough people use that that it probably wouldn't be a problem.
Is there a solution whereby I can correct the mailtool
problem. One possibility would be to have the 12
affected individuals not use mailtool. But the problem
is with mailtool on 2.5.1 and 2.6 (as I later
found on the Sun web site).
Did you try enabling the "Use network aware mail file locking"
configuration option, or did that appear in Solaris 7?
Philip Guenther
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail