I have gotten several comments. Thanks.
Yes the rules are correct. No they are not a duplicate. There is a
one-character difference between the host names. (No I did not pick the
names).
rudun-nbmaster001.cc1.rush.edu
rudun-nbmaster002.cc1.rush.edu
^
|
It was pointed out I forgot to add another rule start (:0:) for the
second instance. These reports are generated once a day, so I will see
what happens tomorrow morning with that typo fixed.
Thanks for the reminder that I do not need to lock a /dev/null delivery.
I had forgotten it. I removed the second : on my /dev/null rules...
--
Christopher Barnard
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
comment your code as if the maintainer will be a homicidal maniac who
knows where you live.
On 9-Feb-2009, at 08:14, Christopher L. Barnard wrote:
### Send v6 netbackup summaries to a separate folder.
###
:0:
* ^From:(_dot_)root(_at_)rudun-nbmaster002(_dot_)cc1(_dot_)rush(_dot_)edu
* ^Subject:.L700 NetBackup
/opt/home/cbarnard/backups
OK, what are the headers of the message that was not filed in
backups? And are you sure you have access to that path?
THIS recipe, however, is invalid.
* ^From:(_dot_)root(_at_)rudun-nbmaster001(_dot_)cc1(_dot_)rush(_dot_)edu
* ^Subject:.L700 NetBackup
/opt/home/cbarnard/backups
And why is this appearing twice anyway, is it no the exact same as the
lines above?
And that would be a good place for a VERBOSE=OFF
:0:
* ^Subject:.NetBackup backup started
/dev/null
You do not need a lock on a /dev/null delivery.
____________________________________________________________
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