On 10 Jan 2005 Claus Atzenbeck (claus(_dot_)atzenbeck(_at_)freenet(_dot_)de)
wrote:
I have found the error, I think, but I cannot see it:
******************************
:0 fwh:
* ^X-Spambayes-Classification.*spam
| formail -i "X-Spam-Info: [cumulus] found pre-marked spam through
X-Spambayes-Classification (spam)"
******************************
What this recipe simply should do is to add a X-Spam-Info line iff there
is a X-Spambayes-Classification in the head that includes "spam".
I get the following error messages:
procmail: Couldn't determine implicit lockfile from "formail"
procmail: Missing action
Any idea what might be wrong?
Remove the trailing ':' (i.e. the implicit lockfile
specification) so the recipe starts with this:
:0 fwh
I have an example of this type of recipe in the Using
SpamAssassin section of my Procmail Quick Start:
<http://www.ii.com/internet/robots/procmail/qs/#SA>
If you want to use a lockfile on that recipe, you need to
explicitly specify it, e.g., use something like this:
:0 fwh: x-spam-info.lock
but my guess is that there is no need to use a lock on this
recipe. On the other hand, people often lock spamassassin filter
recipes because you can overload the memory/cpu of your system if
too many messages are simultaneously being spamassassined.
PS: Even though it seems that I have found the error (?) I am still
interested in my previously sent mail about how to find procmailrc
errors in large procmailrc lists.
I usually comment out my INCLUDERC lines and then uncomment them
until I find which one has the error. This is one of the
advantages of using INCLUDERC files.
Hope this helps,
NM
--
Infinite Ink: <http://www.ii.com/>
Procmail Quick Start: <http://www.ii.com/internet/robots/procmail/qs/>
____________________________________________________________
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