Re: mutt/procmail lock problem

2001-12-20 Thread Jason Tishler
Gary, On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 12:41:07PM -0600, Gary R Van Sickle wrote: > > > > and then releasing a new mutt package. > > > > > > Or perhaps... two? ;-) > > > > Why two? > > I've got the 1.3.24 "released beta" working better than 1.2.5i now (I got > binary sending and recieving and mboxes work

Re: mutt/procmail lock problem

2001-12-18 Thread Gary R Van Sickle
> > > and then releasing a new mutt package. > > > > > > > Or perhaps... two? ;-) > > Why two? I've got the 1.3.24 "released beta" working better than 1.2.5i now (I got binary sending and recieving and mboxes working regardless of mount type). But keep it under your hat, we don't want to cause a

Re: mutt/procmail lock problem

2001-12-18 Thread Jason Tishler
Gary, On Mon, Dec 17, 2001 at 11:50:03PM -0600, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: > From: Jason Tishler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > I recommend "fixing" the permissions of "/var/spool/mail" on your machine: > > > > $ chmod g+w /var/spool/mail > > Done and done, and of course... it does nothing fo

RE: mutt/procmail lock problem

2001-12-17 Thread Gary R. Van Sickle
From: Jason Tishler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Gary, > > I just discovered a locking problem with mutt 1.3.x that I believe > also affects the mutt 1.2.x that you contributed to Cygwin. This lock > problem caused procmail to misfile messages to the wrong mbox file when > mutt happened to be wri

mutt/procmail lock problem

2001-12-17 Thread Jason Tishler
Gary, I just discovered a locking problem with mutt 1.3.x that I believe also affects the mutt 1.2.x that you contributed to Cygwin. This lock problem caused procmail to misfile messages to the wrong mbox file when mutt happened to be writing to the mbox file that should have received the messag