NOTE I just realized I used "consecutive" a couple times in my previous
posts, whereas I did mean to say "concurrent". Bad, bad screw up.
Sorry for any confusion caused.
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 20:57 +, Arthur Dent wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 09:36:29PM +0100, Karsten Bräckelm
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Arthur Dent wrote:
http://www.issociate.de/board/post/232336/Lock_failure_on_%22spamc.lock%22.html
and
http://www.ii.com/internet/robots/procmail/qs/#SA
which tend to suggest that one should NOT put a lock on for SA
processing...
A lock file is not *needed* for spamc (or
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 09:18:38PM +, Arthur Dent wrote:
I've just been doing a little reading..
> > > # Spam filter
> > >
> > > :0fw
> > > * < 256000
> > > | /usr/bin/spamc --username=mark
> >
> > If there is even the slightest chance, your MTA might flood your MDA
> > with mail during a p
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 09:48:20PM +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> Since I was about to hit the send button on this one, here is a shorter
> version of my original thoughts. Partially on-topic (yay!) again. ;)
Oops - I was busy replying to your last message and didn't see this one come
in...
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 09:36:29PM +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 19:31 +, 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
Since I was about to hit the send button on this one, here is a shorter
version of my original thoughts. Partially on-topic (yay!) again. ;)
> Fantastic! This worked perfectly "out of the box"! (just edited mydomain).
Good. :)
> Thank you Guenther!
>
> When I moved it from my test rig to the l
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 19:31 +, 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, eve
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.
Removing the lock from my backup copy solves the problem.
I just want to thank everyone for their pati
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 09:56:49PM +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 20:12 +, Arthur Dent wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 08:22:55PM +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Sorry Chaps, I had no idea this topic would grow so much.
>
>
> Do file-locking, when delivering
jp wrote:
Another option, if you are using postfix, is to setup mydomain.com as a
virtual. Then in /etc/postfix/virtuals, you can
mydomain.com virtual
@mydomain.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and so on... You can ommit the wildcar
Another option, if you are using postfix, is to setup mydomain.com as a
virtual. Then in /etc/postfix/virtuals, you can
mydomain.com virtual
@mydomain.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and so on... You can ommit the wildcard one if you
Larry Nedry wrote:
On 1/30/08 at 3:20 PM + Arthur Dent wrote:
I am so pleased with this rule that I decided to give my poor old SA a
well-deserved rest from this rubbish and take these spams out at Procmail
time.
Keep in mind that there are a lot of mobile phones out there that hav
On 1/30/08 at 3:20 PM + Arthur Dent wrote:
>I am so pleased with this rule that I decided to give my poor old SA a
>well-deserved rest from this rubbish and take these spams out at Procmail
>time.
Keep in mind that there are a lot of mobile phones out there that have
email addresses that begin
Arthur Dent wrote:
Hello all,
Please forgive me for consuming off-topic bandwith with this question but I
don't really want to subscribe to the Procmail list for what is, I hope, a
very simple question.
I get a lot of spam that has a series of numbers in the "To" address, either
in the form To:
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 20:12 +, Arthur Dent wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 08:22:55PM +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > :0 :
> > * [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > spam/to-numerical
>
> Brilliant! It works! Thank you so much Guenther (and others who have replied
> off-list to help me with this).
>
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 08:22:55PM +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 15:20 +, Arthur Dent wrote:
>
> The // are matched literally, they are not used as an RE delimiter. The
> entire string after the asterisk is a regex anyway. Lose the slashes.
>
> Procmail does not kn
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 15:20 +, Arthur Dent wrote:
> Please forgive me for consuming off-topic bandwith with this question but I
> don't really want to subscribe to the Procmail list for what is, I hope, a
> very simple question.
>
> I get a lot of spam that has a series of numbers in the "To"
Hello all,
Please forgive me for consuming off-topic bandwith with this question but I
don't really want to subscribe to the Procmail list for what is, I hope, a
very simple question.
I get a lot of spam that has a series of numbers in the "To" address, either
in the form To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or
18 matches
Mail list logo
