At 02:31 PM 5.24.2004 +0200, maillists(_at_)conactive(_dot_)com wrote:
32(_dot_)20040522104653(_dot_)01f02c90(_at_)10(_dot_)0(_dot_)0(_dot_)15>
From: "Kai Schaetzl" <maillists(_at_)conactive(_dot_)com>
X-Rcpt-To: <procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE>
Jack L. Stone wrote on Sat, 22 May 2004 10:46:53 -0500:
As a follow-up, if you looked at my includes, you will see the raw formail
used there. They would not work without adding formail to the path.
Jack, you missed one point. You use the path in a way that it directly
points
to the program. It seems that some or all shells accept this as a valid path
(see Dallman's experiment), but if you needed another program from within
that directory it would fail.
example:
/usr/local/bin/formail:${PATH}
This finds the program file /usr/local/bin/formail, nothing else. The usual
way to add a path would be:
/usr/local/bin:${PATH}
(although, I'd first check what's in the path and then add only the missing
stuff or overwrite it completely.)
if you then use "formail" it will finally find /usr/local/bin/formail by
extending /usr/local/bin with "formail". "/usr/local/bin/formail" is
something which is not guaranteed to work, because
"/usr/local/bin/formail" +
"formail" = "/usr/local/bin/formail/formail".
Kai
Kai: You are quite right:
/usr/local/bin:${PATH} -- will solve the formail path problem too. I was
focused on finding formail and thus used:
/usr/local/bin/formail:${PATH} -- to make sure it was found.
Your abbreviated path is the right way to see all of the programs in the
path, not just formail.
Best regards,
Jack L. Stone,
Administrator
Sage American
http://www.sage-american.com
jacks(_at_)sage-american(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail