Ooops. Sorry. A poster replied offlist, and when I attempted to put it back on-list, I lamely inserted the SA users list address instead of the procmail list address. (smack forehead)
Disregard..... -C On Fri, 8 Jan 2010, Charles Gregory wrote: : Please reply to list. This reply is to list... : : On Fri, 8 Jan 2010, Richard B. Emerson wrote: : : Actually, the example note has To: bab...@yahoogroups.com not To: : : ch...@pinefields.com... : : The To header is irrelevant. Mail to this list is addressed "To:" the : list. But the *envelope* (which is captured in your system as a : header "Delivered-To:" is the real recipient. : : : ... The intent of the recipe below is to take a message containing : : Delivered-To: and send it to the addressee in that header entry. : : The 'Delivered-To' means it is ALREADY being delivered to that address! : Your MTA (sendmail) should have invoked procmail on behalf of the : 'Delivered-To' user. And this should *not* depend on the "To:" header in : any way.... : : : "if X-Loop:..." is present, don't forward the It should keep a : : forwarding loop from forming. Why this isn't the case is part of my : : problem. : : Unless the forwarding loop is occurring *outside* of procmail! : : : Why am I using sendmail? Because that's the way it was set up with SuSE : : Linux 11.1, which is what I'm running here. : : No, no, why are you SENDING the mail you just received, rather than : delivering it directly to the recipient's mailbox? IE: : : :0 : *(conditions) : $USER/inbox : : : Again, keep in mind that however strange things may have been here (with : : sendmail and procmail), until very recently, it all worked as it should. : : Any time I encounter *this* condition, I always ask, "what changed?" : Look in your logs for *anything* being updated around that time. : : Remember it is the recipient's shell invoked for things like 'formail', so : even if you changed permissions or the 'path' for a user shell, it could : have an impact... ANYTHING that changed.... : : - C :
