At 12:40 2003-02-09 -0500, David Turley wrote:
I'm not solving the problem here. Formail writes the header, the log is
written, the mail is delivered to the correct mailbox, but that error msg is
there.
[snippety-do-dah]
I'm betting this isn't the ONLY recipe in your procmailrc, nor is it likely
the FIRST recipe there. I'll also bet that you haven't taken the time to use:
VERBOSE=YES
to enable verbose logging, which 99% of the time will make the cause of a
problem self-evident.
Hint: I'm suggesting that you consider taking the time to do this, and
make it part of your standard diagnostic process whenever something goes
sideways on you.
procmail: Extraneous deliver-head flag ignored
From 'man procmail', which hopefully you have on your system:
Extraneous x ignored The action line or other flags on this
recipe makes flag x meaningless.
You should also consider running your recipe within a sandbox (see my .sig).
Also, please report the _VERSION_OF_PROCMAIL_ which you are
running. Curiously, this error you're reporting doesn't present itself on
3.15.2 or 3.22, which are the two "current" versions (depending upon
whether you're bleeding edge or not). If you're running anything older
than these, you should upgrade your procmailrc, THEN report the results.
BTW, the following would be MUCH more streamlined (note that $MATCH is
immediatley available to other condition lines at the same nesting level),
and the logging/header insertion presents itself well for cloning it as a
template, since you set the rule text ONCE, instead of twice:
:0
* ^Subject:\/.*
* MATCH ?? 10^1 [^0-9a-z: ]
* MATCH ?? -1^1 [0-9a-z: ]
{
SPAMRULE="SPAM-RULE: too much cruft in subject"
LOG="${SPAMRULE}${NL}"
:0fhw
| $FORMAIL -A "X-${SPAMRULE}"
:0:
$SPAM
}
Technically, the last two can be rolled together, which makes it:
:0
* ^Subject:\/.*
* MATCH ?? 10^1 [^0-9a-z: ]
* MATCH ?? -1^1 [0-9a-z: ]
{
SPAMRULE="SPAM-RULE: too much cruft in subject"
LOG="${SPAMRULE}${NL}"
:0:
| $FORMAIL -A "X-${SPAMRULE}" >> $SPAM
}
If you test your recipes before putting them into production use, there's
no reason to expect formail to fail on the above invocation unless for a
system resource issue on the machine, and that'll be causing you other
grief anyway. Further, this later rewrite eliminates all of the flags you
were using with the filter process, and would probably even alleviate the
problem you're having.
---
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