Got this reply from the procmail list. Are you (Greg and/or Daniel) sure that you're using the proper procmailrc lockfile syntax on recipes that deliver to mailboxes?
----- Forwarded from Philip Guenther: Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 18:59:28 -0600 From: Philip Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Bart Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Procmail Mailing List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: More "missing first F" problems Bart Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Philip, is there a specific version of procmail in which this is a known >bug or is known fixed? The missing 'F' problem is NOT A BUG IN PROCMAIL. It is a sign that either: a) none of the locking methods used by procmail are working (so that procmail is 'colliding' with itself), or b) that some other program is accessing the mailbox without using a locking method in common with procmail. If you're using a locallockfile (or this is the implicit delivery to $DEFAULT), then (a) is basically ruled out: I don't know of a system where dotlocking isn't effective. In that case, you need to look at all the other programs touching the mailbox and see how they think the locking is supposed to work, then pick a method everyone can do and recompile/reconfigure everyone to use it. If someone wants to report a problem they should include recipes and the output of "procmail -v" on the machine doing the deliveries in their report. Philip Guenther Procmail Maintainer _______________________________________________ procmail mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
