Hummm, I am not sure of your diagram below
| POP3_server -> fetchmail -> procmail -> spamd -> sendmail_local ->
| mailbox
Spamd returns the message back to procmail, so that is procmail that
interacts with whatever is sendmail_local.
So it would read rather:
spamd
dman wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 01:41:47PM -0400, Barry L. Kline wrote:
>
-- [snip] --
> | Any ideas what I need to do to fix this?
>
> Locking. mbox is horrible when it comes to data integrity in the face
> of parallel updates.
>
> | BEGIN CLIPPED SECTION -
> |
> | Thanks,
>
On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 03:21:40PM -0400, Barry L. Kline wrote:
| dman wrote:
| > On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 01:41:47PM -0400, Barry L. Kline wrote:
| -- [snip] --
| > If you manually add a line like
| > From Mon Apr 15 13:49:45 CDT 2002
| > right here above the Received: line, the message will
CertaintyTech - Ed Henderson wrote:
>
> > If you manually add a line like
> > From Mon Apr 15 13:49:45 CDT 2002
> > right here above the Received: line, the message will no longer be
> > "embedded" in the previous one. That 'From ' line (but don't indent
> > it) is the message separator in t
> If you manually add a line like
> From Mon Apr 15 13:49:45 CDT 2002
> right here above the Received: line, the message will no longer be
> "embedded" in the previous one. That 'From ' line (but don't indent
> it) is the message separator in the mbox format.
>
If you run spamd with "-F 1" o
On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 01:41:47PM -0400, Barry L. Kline wrote:
| I verified
| that by watching the transfer during fetchmail. It mentioned that
| there were 5 e-mails, and transferred 5, including the one that
| contained the 382005 tuple message with e-mail attachment.
|
| Once the mail passe
