On 09/01/03 04:41 PM, Larry Gilson sat at the `puter and typed:
> Hi Louis,
>
> Please forgive the delay in responding. I was out of touch for a period of
> time.
Ditto . . .
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Louis LeBlanc
>
> > After rereading a lot of procmail docs, I've found that the exitcode
> > is saved when the 'w' flag is used in the procmail recipe as follows:
>
> I was moving in this very same direction.
Great minds . . .
> > :0fw
> > * !^Subject:.*SAtalk
> > | spamc -u "$LOGNAME"
> >
> > Also, the $? variable should hold that exitcode, so following that
> > recipe with
> >
> > SCANNED=$?
> >
> > *should* (meaning untested so far :) cause the following recipe to
> > work only if spamc failed to connect to spamd:
> >
> > :0fw
> > * ? test ! $SCANNED
> > | spamassassin -a
> >
> > That assumes I've gotten the syntax of this last recipe correct -
> > particularly the second line.
>
> I follow you to the end. However, I found references by Philip Guenther
> (Procmail list maintainer) to suggest the following:
>
>
> :0 w
> * ? progname
> | do this if exitcode == 0
>
> # save the return code in a testable variable
> ret = $?
>
> # Need the 'E' here as ret will contain the return code of
> # the action instead of 'progname' if 'progname' succeeded.
> :0 E
> * ret ?? ^^1^^
> | do this if exitcode == 1
>
> :0 E
> * ret ?? ^^2^^
> | do this if exitcode == 2
>
> :0 E
> | otherwise, do this
>
>
> If we use that strategy, we might be able to experiment with code as
> follows:
>
> :0fw
> * !^Subject:.*SAtalk
> | spamc -u "$LOGNAME"
>
> SCANNED=$?
>
> :0 Efw
> * SCANNED ?? ^^0^^
> | spamassassin -a
I'm pretty sure that wouldn't work. The E causes the second to always
be skipped unless the first didn't execute - like for mail to the SA
list.
> I was wondering why we could not do the following:
>
> :0
> * !^Subject:.*Satalk
> {
> :0fw: spamassassin.lock
> * < 256000
> | spamc
>
> :0 efw: spamassassin.lock
> * < 256000
> | spamassassin -a
> }
>
> Shouldn't the e mean execute if the previous recipe's condition(s)
> matched but there was an error in the action? What do you think?
I think you're right with that one - using the lowercase 'e', but I'm
not sure how an error is defined there. The procmailrc manpage has
the following:
e This recipe only executes if the immediately preceding recipe
failed (i.e., the action line was attempted, but resulted in an
error).
I'd probably go with the following to start off:
:0
* !^Subject:.*Satalk
{
:0fw: spamassassin.lock
* < 256000
| spamc
SCANNED=$?
:0fw: spamassassin.lock
* ! SCANNED ?? ^^0^^
* < 256000
| spamassassin -a
}
> By the way, the SA FAQ suggests using a lock. I don't know if spamc
> benefits from the lock but I use it anyway.
> # The lock file ensures that only 1 spamassassin invocation happens
> # at 1 time, to keep the load down.
> #
> :0fw: spamassassin.lock
> * < 256000
> | spamassassin
Probably a good idea. Even if this is unnecessary, it will probably
reduce the load when dozens of messages come in at once.
Lou
--
Louis LeBlanc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fully Funded Hobbyist, KeySlapper Extrordinaire :)
http://www.keyslapper.org ԿԬ
We must believe that it is the darkest before the dawn of a beautiful
new world. We will see it when we believe it.
-- Saul Alinsky
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
