At 15:17 2002-06-06 -0500, Shane Williams did say:
I read the passage you quoted (which is actually in the procmail man
page not procmailrc)
A overtypo on my part.
The -p option preserves the old environment, but says nothing about the
order in which things are processed.
Q: Are you even USING the -p option?
If not, why are you concerned with it, because the passage SPECIFICALLY
says that if -p IS NOT specified, and if an rc file isn't specified (i.e.
you're not running a manual script invocation), THEN the global rc file
will be used.
I'm guessing you haven't considered just making an /etc/procmailrc and
putting little more than a LOGFILE and LOG statement in it, then delivering
some email and noting the order? Seeing as you have an interest in using
the global procmailrc, I'd figure you'd already have a script you were
thinking of using, so conducting this simple test wouldn't take much.
And the passage below doesn't make it clear whether in the absence of a
named rcfile or -p, it processes the global rc first and then the user rc,
or just processes the global and delivers.
From the quoted passage:
> >>procmail will, prior to reading $HOME/.procmailrc, interpret commands
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
**********************************
> >>from /etc/procmailrc (if present). Care must be
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*****************************
I've misplaced my yellow hiliter, so hopefully the above identifies the key
parts of the small relevant passage.
Once the message is *DELIVERED*, it is delivered - so if your global rc
tosses it off to /dev/null (or someplace else), it won't end up showing up
at the user's .procmailrc -- just as it wouldn't be showing up at the
recipe following the one that you delivered with if you had two consecutive
recipies in one file and delivered in the first one.
And, despite the warning about root permissions, the full implications
aren't spelled out. If this situation processes the global rc first
and then the user rc, does this also mean that the user rc runs as
root also?
> >>will be executed with root
> >>privileges (contrary to the $HOME/.procmailrc file of course).
Lower English translation: "of course, $HOME/.procmailrc IS NOT invoked as
root" [since allowing anyone with a keyboard to write a script which would
be executed as root would be VERY BAD]. I trust that the multitude of
reasons that this would be bad should not need to be published in a
bulleted list.
---
Sean B. Straw / Professional Software Engineering
Procmail disclaimer: <http://www.professional.org/procmail/disclaimer.html>
Please DO NOT carbon me on list replies. I'll get my copy from the list.
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail