procmail
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: LASTFOLDER blues

2007-03-25 13:32:47
On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 08:38:50PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:

On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 10:31:14AM -0700, Bart Schaefer wrote:

You can have multiple deliveries without assigning to HOST, as long as
one of the multiples is $DEFAULT.

No, what you suggest is *unconditionally* fill them into
$DEFAULT. That defeats the purpose of having mail processed and sorted
by a program.

No, he's not suggesting that.  You can change DEFAULT on the fly,
in your conditional recipe.

   :0
   * conditions
   { DEFAULT = FolderX  SWITCHRC }

as your last of the conditional recipes in this block of multi-
deliveries.


If you want to subvert that, you've got to do the additional
programming yourself; but you don't want to do any additional
programming.  You've created set of constraints that it's impossible
to satisfy.

There is nothing to subvert, I'll repeat my very simple constraints:

o no loss of mail (should be self-understood, but anyway)
o multiple delivery actions per incoming mail with different conditions

Fine.  Have your last recipe be one that calls a binary or script
to check the delivery to $LASTFOLDER.

procmail never says that you will have to put everything in $DEFAULT,
you're misquoting it.

He's saying you can customize the value of DEFAULT based on the condition;
the self-same condtion that you used to, in your words, "cheat," and assign
HOST to a bogus value instead.  It's a competing heuristic to do what
you want to do.  And it seems to solve your problem, as long as we know
that the folder won't fail in the manner you've experienced with some other
folders.  If we don't know that, then put after that one another e-flag
that re-queues the message.


procmail has two bugs/weaknesses:

a) There should be a switch that is the opposite of -t, a hard-fail
   switch that triggers when any delivery attempt fails
b) LASTFOLDER is wrongly set contrary to the documenation even for
   failed attempts. It should undo the setting of LASTFOLDER if the
   delivery was not successful.

Be my guest and write to the "Poltergeist" maintainer of procmail
and get him to come back and fix your bug.  He has promised to come
back at least twice in the last two years, but so far it is all
"vaporware." :-)

As it stands the only way is the pairing of each recipe with :0 e
bloat. Sad, but true.

I wish you'd quit using that "only way" language.  There's always
more than one way to skin a cat. :-)

Dallman

____________________________________________________________
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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>