On 14 Nov, Philip Guenther wrote:
| Don Hammond <procmail(_at_)tradersdata(_dot_)com> writes:
| ...
| >One thing that is curious to me is I couldn't generate an "Error while
| >writing to" message while doing some simple tests. I was expecting
| >that these filters should have an "i" flag. I'm sure I've seen those
| >errors in my log files with similar recipes, which were cured with the
| >"i" flag. Is it because I was testing from the command line and
| >something to do with std in/out on a terminal?
|
| Procmail will only see a write error if the message is smaller than the
| kernel pipe buffer or if the program in the action exits fast enough
| to catch procmail before it does the writes. Try testing with messages
| larger than 8KB.
A little tardy, but thanks Philip. It seems then that Dave Cook (the
original poster) should add an "i" flag to any of those examples I gave
(which are replacing the body with his own message). If I understand
correctly, it won't hurt if such an "error" condition doesn't exist,
and will prevent procmail from considering the message body unfiltered
if it does.
--
Reply to list please, or append "8" to "procmail" in address if you must.
Spammers' unrelenting address harvesting forces me to this...reluctantly.
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail