On Sun, 6 Jul 2008, Professional Software Engineering wrote:
An actual message header and output from the logs corresponding to the
attempted recipes would generally be appropriate. I expect it may be
matching but failing to deliver to the location specified, and as such is
continuing to deliver to default. If the ignore failures flag was on the
recipe, the messages would probably just "vanish", which would support that
they're being MATCHED, but failing to deliver, which is almost universally a
permissions issue.
This particular line though is telling:
*
^TO:.(plug-discuss(_at_)lists@plug.phoenix.az.us|plug-announce-admin(_at_)lists@plug.phoenix.az.us)
Ignore the failure to excape literal dots -- please explain why are there TWO
@ in each of those addresses?
The above recipe is a prime example of the fact that you have to think
about procmail recipes and not type them in a blind, sleep deprived
stupor.
I rather suspect that the second @ in each of those is supposed to be a dot.
If no, then try:
* ^TO:.(plug-discuss|plug-announce-admin)@lists\.plug\.phoenix\.az\.us
Educate me please. Why escape the dots? Other recipes I have work without
doing it, ie:
:0:
* ^TO_users(_at_)spamassassin(_dot_)apache(_dot_)org
$HOME/mail/list-spamassassin-users
and
:0:
* ^TO_ubuntu-users(_at_)lists(_dot_)ubuntu(_dot_)com
$HOME/mail/list-ubuntu-users
Notice the TO_ macro in these. They don't generate lock failures. They work
perfectly.
Next, the delivery action:
$HOME/holtzm/mail/list-plug-discuss
Who wants to wager that $HOME is something like /home/holtzm ?
So, does:
/home/holtzm/holtzm/mail/
exist? Or are we trying to deliver to a bogus directory? I note in
proffered solutions, others have maintained the same delivery path as you
originally used, so even if their CONDITIONS are good, if the delivery path
is bogus, you won't magically see a delivery succeed.
try:
$HOME/mail/list-plug-discuss
You win the bet. See my comment above about a blind stupor. However, when
I made the correction it still failed.
I have also tried "TO_" for all of these but they generated lock failures.
Everything I try generates a log entry such as:
This is indicative of an ATTEMPT to deliver (that's the ONLY time an auto
lock should occur), which means in those cases, you were getting a MATCH on
the condition. Again, if the directory you're using for delivery doesn't
exist, then the typical lockfile strategy will fail, just as the simple
delivery will...
You're confusing a lowly end user. Are you saying that
procmail: No match on
"........:(_dot_)plug-discuss(_at_)lists@plug.phoenix.az.us"
means it matched?
Finally! I got one recipe to work.
:0:
* ^TO(plug-discuss(_at_)lists(_dot_)PLUG(_dot_)phoenix(_dot_)az(_dot_)us)
$HOME/mail/list-PLUG-discuss
Not sure why. Notice the absence of "_" or ":." after "TO". The pm log
shows:
procmail: No match on
"(^((Original-)?(Resent-)?(To|Cc|Bcc)|(X-Envelope|Apparently(-Resent)?)-To):(.*[^a-zA-Z])?):(_dot_)plug-discuss(_at_)lists@plug.phoenix.az.us"
procmail: No match on
"^List-ID:(_dot_)*plug-discuss(_at_)lists(_dot_)plug(_dot_)phoenix(_dot_)az(_dot_)us"
procmail: No match on
"(^((Original-)?(Resent-)?(To|Cc|Bcc)|(X-Envelope|Apparently(-Resent)?)-To):(.*[^a-zA-Z])?):(_dot_)plug-discuss(_at_)lists@plug.phoenix.az.us"
procmail: Match on
"(^((Original-)?(Resent-)?(To|Cc|Bcc)|(X-Envelope|Apparently(-Resent)?)-To):(.*[^a-zA-Z])?)(plug-discuss(_at_)lists(_dot_)PLUG(_dot_)phoenix(_dot_)az(_dot_)us)"
These recipes were run singly at different times. Any idea why one works
and not the others?
Many thanks for your detailed response and for getting me on the right
track.
--
Bob Holtzman
The most dangerous ones aren't the ones who don't know.
They're the ones who don't know that they don't know.
____________________________________________________________
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