Just a comment about your "A" flag: I don't think it's doing anything
useful. The "A" flag essentially says, "Run me if the previous recipe
conditions succeeded." Since there were no conditions in the previous
recipe, "A" will always be true. Otoh, the "a" flag says, "Run me if
the previous recipe succeeded." That implies piped programs, etc.,
which would exit with an appropriate exit status (only looked at if you
used the "w" or "W" flag, which you did). So you want the "a"
flag.
Even so, I'm not sure what the point of an "a" flag is here, since
you have no "escape hatch" coded in for what will happen if the
recipe *doesn't* succeed.
The "A" was the product of copy/paste... but as you said, isn't needed.
Joe, I understand your frustration; but "doesn't work" is just not very
helpful to us who can't see your server. I would suggest running the code
that doesn't work with verbose logging turned on, and sending a snippet
of relevant log entries to the list. And tell us what *does* happen
instead of what you wanted to happen.
I'd be happy to do this- In the course of my testing I had sendmail
running in verbose logging mode AND procmail running in verbose mode.
Neither had any helpful logs (IMO) but perhaps they'd mean more to you
here.
Frankly, I have had maddening things like this happen to me in the
past. Probably most of us have. My method of troubleshooting, if
I don't get any clues from studying the verbose logs, is to back up
and simplify. Comment out all but the first condition, and see if
*that* recipe works. Then add the next condition; ditto. Then add
the first piped command. Work? Okay, add the next. And so on.
Soon you will find out what it is that isn't working.
You and I think alike- this is the precise method I used for testing...
Another thing to think about: I've had things that looked absolutely
right that didn't work, and after a *long* time of trying to figure out
why and resorting to the above sort of empirical testing, I found -- this
has happened to me at least twice in a decade of procmail use -- that
there was an errant space or tab at the end of some matching code that
I couldn't see. I've manually re-typed the whole recipe before and
found that the newly typed version worked!
Again, the exact thing I did. I retyped the whole snippet by hand,
testing as I went... and it didn't fail until the output of (formail;
cat) was piped to sendmail. I will do this testing again, as I believe
I have a more complete picture of what is happening now.
Thanks for your input and help... if that testing doesn't work I'll
see if I can put some verbose log snippets here.
Joe
--
dman
____________________________________________________________
procmail mailing list Procmail homepage: http://www.procmail.org/
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail
____________________________________________________________
procmail mailing list Procmail homepage: http://www.procmail.org/
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail