I asked,
| >Now, here's my question: is the following equivalent?
| ...
| > :0Ewc:local.lock
| > * cond3
| > * cond4
| > * cond5
| > | pipe1
| > :0Aec # needs no local lock
| > | pipe2
| >
| >Also, what if I leave off the `A'?
Philip has responded,
| Those should be equivalent. Using 'A' and 'e' together is perfectly
| legal. The match/no-match status of the ':0Ewc' recipe will be used
| directly by the 'A' flag, regardless of whether that recipe didn't match
| because of its 'E' flag or because of a failed condition.
OK, thank you, but what about my second question: does it also come out the
same if I leave off the `A,' or would mail for which cond1 or cond2 was met,
or neither cond1 nor cond2 nor (cond3&cond4&cond5), send a copy to pipe2 if
its own previously attempted recipe's action had failed?
I guess I'm asking in part, how far back can `e' (if not tempered by `A')
refer, or what does `e' do if the immediately preceding recipe on its
nesting level not attempted?
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail