On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 09:36:29PM +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 19:31 +0000, Arthur Dent wrote: > > Apologies to everyone for wasting OT bandwidth. I have just re-read man > > procmailrc and realised that a "copy" recipe is not considered to be a > > delivery action and therefore does not need a lock. > > Uhm, where did you read that? Clearly, even a copy can deliver mail. > From man procmailrc:
"You can tell procmail to treat a delivering recipe as if it were a
non-delivering recipe by
specifying the ‘c’ flag on such a recipe. This will make procmail
generate a carbon copy of
the mail by delivering it to this recipe, yet continue processing the
rcfile."
>
> > Removing the lock from my backup copy solves the problem.
>
> As per the log snippet from your previous post: Procmail can't acquire
> the lock for some reason. But it does not complain that it couldn't
> deliver. The mail should have been appended to the backup mbox
> regardless.
>
> So why does the lock fail? Wrong permissions for the dir?
Well, good question. All I can say is that *every* mail gets written to this
backup file (and always has for about the last 2 years). It is only those
mails that match the "numerical" spams that cause this error.
What I don't understand is that by the time the numerical rule is being
evaluated, the copy should already have been written. - Surely?
Hmmm....
Thanks again.
Mark
pgpNanAWeaDzf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
