> > [...] if you did use a lockfile here then while sendmail would run in > > parallel and procmail would run in parallel they would converge at the > > spamassassin step and only one of those would be running at a time. > > > > :0fw:spamassassin-run.lock > > | spamassassin -P > > Right idea, wrong execution. Local lockfiles are ignored on recipes > that do not deliver to files. You need a global lockfile when > delivering to a pipe, like this:
Are you sure? For which procmail version? I am running v3.22 and the first recipe works fine for me. Try this recipe and you can see for yourself: :0:lock-file-test.lock * Subject: lockfile test | ls -l lock-file-test.lock | mail -s lock-file-test $(whoami) This is the output I get back in the mail message. I just tried it. It does generate a lockfile. -r-------- 1 bob bob 1 Jul 5 20:02 lock-file-test.lock Perhaps a particular version of procmail handles this differently. But I have been using this way for years. And searching the procmail documentation I could find nothing to lead me to believe it would behave otherwise. Procmail must be told the name of the lockfile in the case of a pipe. It can't guess one. If procmail sees '>' or '>>' on the commandline then it will use the filename as a lockfile name. But if it can't guess a name you have to tell it. Bob
msg07066/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
