On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 at 19:44 GMT, Derrick 'dman' Hudson penned:
>
> --YZ5djTAD1cGYuMQK Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding:
> quoted-printable
>
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 03:51:20PM -0700, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
>
>| I assume that
On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 03:51:20PM -0700, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
| I assume that this works because
| userforward:
| is defined before
| procmail:
| in exim.conf?
##
# DIRECTORS CONFIGURATION
* Monique Y. Herman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031028 15:37]:
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 at 20:06 GMT, Vineet Kumar penned:
> [snip]
> > One way to test what's happening is to use exim's address testing
> > mode:
> >
> > /usr/sbin/exim -bt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Where your local user account username sho
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 at 20:06 GMT, Vineet Kumar penned:
[snip]
> One way to test what's happening is to use exim's address testing
> mode:
>
> /usr/sbin/exim -bt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Where your local user account username should probably work just as
> well, being treated as a local unqualified a
* Monique Y. Herman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031027 20:50]:
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 at 00:26 GMT, Tom penned:
> [snip]
> >
> > ...which seems to suggest
> >
> > * not only that a .procmailrc makes a .forward useless when that
> > .forward is only meant to roll on procmail * but *also* that it's the
> >
* [28/10/2003 17:28] Monique Y. Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> But it sounds like the dual fetchmail theory that's been proposed is the
> more likely culprit ...
So it seems; I'm quite happy with it... :-)
> maybe you have a cron job going, rather than something in init.d?
Nope. Could it be so
* [28/10/2003 14:09] Wayne Topa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Hm. As a matter of fact, I have the same polling lines from my
> > .fetchmailrc in /etc/fetchmailrc, but I thought this wouldn't matter,
> > since I have "no keep" at the end of those lines? Doesn't "no keep" mean
> > to delete mail at the s
Tom([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said:
> * [28/10/2003 02:14] Derrick 'dman' Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > | However, the longer this takes, the more I'm beginning to feel a little
> > | nervous, since it undoubtedly has to do with some misconfiguration of
> > | mine.
> >
> > Don't
* [28/10/2003 02:14] Derrick 'dman' Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> | However, the longer this takes, the more I'm beginning to feel a little
> | nervous, since it undoubtedly has to do with some misconfiguration of
> | mine.
>
> Don't be so nervous, you just get duplicate mails. It's not the wors
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 at 00:26 GMT, Tom penned:
[snip]
>
> ...which seems to suggest
>
> * not only that a .procmailrc makes a .forward useless when that
> .forward is only meant to roll on procmail * but *also* that it's the
> cause of the duplicate mails, since the .procmailrc puts mail in it's
>
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 19:06:20 -0500
"Derrick 'dman' Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 11:23:35PM +0100, Tom wrote:
>
> | However, the longer this takes, the more I'm beginning to feel a
> | little nervous, since it undoubtedly has to do with some
> | misconfiguration of
* [28/10/2003 00:49] Monique Y. Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Well, initially, I thought it was from a .forward. Afterwards, I
> > learned that today's Debian/Exim configuration doesn't need a .forward
> > to call procmail. As soon as a .procmailrc file exists in the user's
> > home directory, m
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 at 23:58 GMT, Derrick 'dman' Hudson penned:
>
>| I didn't realize that editing a .procmailrc without having procmail |
>set up through a .forward could get me into trouble ...
>
> exim can be set up to handle procmail delivery directly, without the
> indirection of a .forward
On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 11:23:35PM +0100, Tom wrote:
| However, the longer this takes, the more I'm beginning to feel a little
| nervous, since it undoubtedly has to do with some misconfiguration of
| mine.
Don't be so nervous, you just get duplicate mails. It's not the worst
that could happen :
On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 03:49:07PM -0700, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
| On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 at 22:23 GMT, Tom penned:
| > * [27/10/2003 22:54] Monique Y. Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
| >
| >> > Has anyone else experienced something like this?
| >>
| >> How are you calling procmail? If it's from a .
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:20:10 +0100
Tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Not sure what I'm doing wrong, but Mutt displays some mail twice,
> which is quite annoying. I was only getting started with
> exim/procmail/mutt, and it worked correctly for about two days. Exim
> hands mail over to pro
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 at 22:23 GMT, Tom penned:
> * [27/10/2003 22:54] Monique Y. Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> > Has anyone else experienced something like this?
>>
>> How are you calling procmail? If it's from a .forward, can we see
>> that, too?
>
> Well, initially, I thought it was from a
Message de Tom, le lundi 27 octobre :
> Not sure what I'm doing wrong, but Mutt displays some mail twice, which
> is quite annoying.
mutt displays your mails twice, because they are like this in the
mailbox. you can see it thanks to the = sign in the arrow. look for
configuration problems oustsid
* [27/10/2003 22:54] Monique Y. Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Has anyone else experienced something like this?
>
> How are you calling procmail? If it's from a .forward, can we see that,
> too?
Well, initially, I thought it was from a .forward. Afterwards, I learned
that today's Debian/Exim
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 at 19:20 GMT, Tom penned:
> Hey,
>
> Not sure what I'm doing wrong, but Mutt displays some mail twice,
> which is quite annoying. I was only getting started with
> exim/procmail/mutt, and it worked correctly for about two days. Exim
> hands mail over to procmail since I have a
Hey,
Not sure what I'm doing wrong, but Mutt displays some mail twice, which
is quite annoying. I was only getting started with exim/procmail/mutt,
and it worked correctly for about two days. Exim hands mail over to
procmail since I have a .procmailrc file, and the only thing that file
contains ri
21 matches
Mail list logo
