procmail
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: help: complex pipe does nothing!

2001-01-31 12:51:05
procmail: Non-zero exitcode (1) from " (/usr/local/bin/formail -r -A "From: 
jobs(_at_)tellme(_dot_)com" \
    -A "X-Loop: jobs(_at_)tellme(_dot_)com" ; \
cat /home/angus/jobs.txt; \
) | /usr/sbin/sendmail -i -t -F "Angus Davis""

The above line from the logfile says "it didn't work."

Why didn't it work?  That is the question.  Can you try feeding a test
message into this pipe, using the shell?  What happens?

You have absolute paths in your recipe -- some folks say this is a bad 
idea, and I tend to agree.  What has changed on your system lately?
Was procmail/formail reinstalled?  sendmail?

You could try something like this in place of the 2nd recipe:

    # if the name was not in the cache
    :0e
    {
        :0 fhW
        | /usr/local/bin/formail -r -A "From: jobs(_at_)tellme(_dot_)com" \
          -A "X-Loop: jobs(_at_)tellme(_dot_)com" 

        :0 fbWi
        | cat /home/angus/jobs.txt 

        :0
        | /usr/sbin/sendmail -i -t -F "Angus Davis"

    }

and the log would tell you WHICH program had the problem.

...
Now my hunch is that procmail handles the simpler pipe just fine, by
chopping the arguments up and passing them to the appropriate system
call, or socket, or something:
/usr/local/bin/formail,-rD,8192,/tmp/jobs.cache

Maybe, maybe not.  If you send the same message twice, does the 2nd
time "succeed"?

The latter pipe, though ... that doesn't get munged in the log at all

What do you mean by "doesn't get munged"?  

...

Any ideas?  I've been using variants of this recipe for some years now.

The logfile appears (to my untrained eye) consistent with the "formail
is now in /usr/bin/ rather than /usr/local/bin/" theory.

This is the first time it hasn't worked for me.  Has there perhaps been
some recent change, maybe WRT handling buffers for security, that might
have broken this (admittedly somewhat silly) recipe?

This leads me to ask again what has changed between the time it worked 
and now.  

Or, suggestions for a better auto-responder?


vacation(1) .  It has always worked for me, and although it's not 100% 
clean (it doesn't seem to be case-insensitive where it should IMO be
for example) I have not ever been bitten by it AFAIR.

hth
-- 
Neither I nor my employer will accept any liability for any problems
or consequential loss caused by relying on this information.  Sorry.
Collin Park                         Not a statement of my employer.
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail

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