Hi Bart, Thanks for the reply!
> -----Original Message----- > From: Bart Schaefer > On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Larry Gilson wrote: > > > > > :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 agree. I only mentioned it because Gunther wrote it. I was > > wondering if I misunderstood the context. > > You misunderstood the context. Agreed. Thanks for pointing this out. Now I understand. > This assumes that spamc exits with a zero status any time it > filters, whether the message was tagged spam or not. I'm not > entirely sure that's > the case. It appears that whether spamd is running or not, spamc appears to exits with a zero status. I'll follow-up with testing results in a separate message. Thanks again! Regards, Larry ------------------------------------------------------- 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
