lmtpd reporting faulty parse errors

2004-02-16 Thread Henk . Roose
Hi, I'm using cyrus 2.1.16 on Solaris 8 with sendmail delivering to unix sockets. I've had this experience before and more often when I was running 2.1.14 but every now and then lmtpd starts reporting these kind of errors with syntactically correct sieve scripts -- from my logs: Feb 15 04:26:00

Re: lmtpd reporting faulty parse errors

2004-02-16 Thread Simon Brady
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Feb 15 04:26:00 host.cwi.nl lmtpd[28106]: [ID 358100 local6.info] sieve parse > error for user: line 7: fileinto not required > [...] > Did anyone experience this before? Does anybody have any idea why this > is happening? If the script includes a

Re: lmtpd reporting faulty parse errors

2004-02-17 Thread Henk . Roose
Simon, On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 08:24:29AM +1300, Simon Brady wrote: > On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Feb 15 04:26:00 host.cwi.nl lmtpd[28106]: [ID 358100 local6.info] sieve parse > > error for user: line 7: fileinto not required > > [...] > > Did anyone experience this befo

Re: lmtpd reporting faulty parse errors

2004-02-17 Thread Ken Murchison
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Simon, On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 08:24:29AM +1300, Simon Brady wrote: On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Feb 15 04:26:00 host.cwi.nl lmtpd[28106]: [ID 358100 local6.info] sieve parse error for user: line 7: fileinto not required [...] Did anyone experience th

Re: lmtpd reporting faulty parse errors

2004-02-17 Thread Rob Siemborski
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > This is not what I'm talking about. I stated earlier that the scripts > are syntactically correct. In addition to that -- all requirements are > in the scripts! > > I suspect this is a bug and it's load and/or uptime related. > Question remains: did a

Re: lmtpd reporting faulty parse errors

2004-02-18 Thread Henk . Roose
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 08:49:49AM -0500, Ken Murchison wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >This is not what I'm talking about. I stated earlier that the scripts > >are syntactically correct. In addition to that -- all requirements are > >in the scripts! > > > >I suspect this is a bug and it