On Sun, 18 May 2025 at 21:35, Helge Kreutzmann <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Richard, > Am Sun, May 18, 2025 at 07:01:34PM +0000 schrieb Helge Kreutzmann: > > Hello Richard, > > Am Sun, May 18, 2025 at 07:12:15PM +0100 schrieb Richard Lewis: > > > i think what i need to know is - how do i configure exim to match your set > > > up. .probably thay is just what procmail package to install, and any > > > settings for that? (i know nothing about procmail) > > > > > > im starting in a systemd-nspawn container and am not seeing the issue yet) > > > > I cannot tell you how I installed it initially. I started with Debian > > around 2000, and the systems evolved, i.e. when installing a new > > machine I usually copied over important configuration files. > > > > I noticed that exim contains some rules regarding procmail, but I'm > > sure that I did not touch them. I have no idea how to configure exim > > except by Debconf. > > > > The procmail recipie which is in place is neglible, so I just > > deinstalled procmail. > > > > Let's see the next run … > > Ok, some mails no longer get properly sorted, but on this machine this > is tolerable. But procmail is gone now. > > Now I get only single e-mails (with all the changes in the settings > shown earlier). > > However, my server extensivly uses procmail (and logcheck), so this > combo should really work. I have no idea how we can debug this in the > hard freeze now. (My server is running stable, and does so for a > reason). > > From my side, I'm now back to work, so before Friday I won't have much > time for debugging. > > I would suggest to install a machine with local exim (per debconf) and > some simple procmail rules, maybe just installing procmail is > sufficient, I don't know.
this is exactly what i am trying to do! so far, i could not reproduce the original bug. I have found one oddity which may be related, but no lost mails i have installed procmail, and it made no difference. but i suspect it's not doing anything, but i dont know procmail, so i need some help. > And maybe for postponing the changes in 1.4.4 for the next development > cycle? that's not my decision to make. without a reproducible bug, it seems unlikely?
