Also, note that that example indicates that my suggestion should
have included the -d flag in the toplevel formail invocation. You
may also may not need the -Y flag that I use so my suggestion is
now
formail -ds procmail -m pmrc
If it's a real mailbox then you should *not* use the -d option: that's
for splitting digests. When splitting mailboxes your original suggestion
was correct:
formail -Y -s procmail -m pmrc
The difference is that -d tells formail to start a new message whenever
it sees a bunch of lines that look like header fields. Normally it
requires a "From " line before the header field-like lines. If the
mailbox contains a digest message, the -d option would split the digest
instead of treating it as a single message.
I added the -d flag because the formail.man file (from v3.15.1) says
.TP
.B \-(_at_)FM_DIGEST@
Tell formail that the messages it is supposed to split need not be in
strict mailbox format (i.e. allows you to split digests/articles or
non-standard mailbox formats). This disables recognition of the
.B Content-Length:
field.
.TP
and Marco indicated that his mailbox was likely to be munged. I interpreted
that to mean that his mailbox was likely not to be in 'strict mailbox format'.
That said, Philip has a greater understanding of the internals of the progs
than I do so I'd pay attention to his input.
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail