Procmail Problem

[mat]

Hi all,

I am sorry if this is not the right forum for this sort of question, it
seemed the best match from the forums I had on offer. Hopefully I will be
able to find someone who can help.

I have no real experience with 'nix, but do have a shared (Red Hat I think?)
hosting account. I am trying to set up a promailrc file to direct incoming
mail to a script. This works fine when I don't use conditionals:

:0
| /usr/bin/php /home/myaccount/myscript

However, all conditionals seem to fail....

:0
* Subject.*urgent
| /usr/bin/php /home/myaccount/myscript

I have tried so many conditional statements that I do not think it is just
me getting the syntax wrong... for example, I have tried, as some tutorials
suggest, having the colon in the above, etc.:

* Subject:.*urgent

If anyone could suggest any pearls that would help, I would greatly
appreciate it.

Many Thanks,

Mat.

[Davide Bianchi]

mat <yubhuntleyremoveboo@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> However, all conditionals seem to fail....
> :0
> * Subject.*urgent
> | /usr/bin/php /home/myaccount/myscript

Try adding

LOGFILE=somelogfile
VERBOSE=YES

at the beginning of the .procmailrc and see what's going on.
Warning: the "verbose" can become reaaaally verbose...

Davide

[Michael Heiming]

Davide Bianchi <davideyeahsure@onlyforfun.net> wrote:

> mat <yubhuntleyremoveboo@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> > However, all conditionals seem to fail....
> > :0
> > * Subject.*urgent
> > | /usr/bin/php /home/myaccount/myscript

> Try adding

> LOGFILE=somelogfile
> VERBOSE=YES

Isn't it:
VERBOSE=on

I'd add in addition:
LOGABSTRACT=all

--
Michael Heiming

Remove +SIGNS and www. if you expect an answer, sorry for
inconvenience, but I get tons of SPAM

[Davide Bianchi]

Michael Heiming <michael+USENET@www.heiming.de> wrote:

>> LOGFILE=somelogfile
>> VERBOSE=YES

> Isn't it:
> VERBOSE=on

Hummm... I've used VERBOSE=YES and it worked, but probably is because
I've a quite mangled version of procmail.

Davide

[mat]

Hi Davide and Michael,

Thank you for your advice. I did as you said, and now have the following
procmailrc file:

LOGFILE=/home/account/maillogs/mail.txt
VERBOSE=on
LOGABSTRACT=all

:0
^From.*mat*
^Subject:.*mail2
|/usr/bin/php /home/account/incoming/mail.php

This is not supposed to, but does, write two files before failing. One is
the LOGFILE mail.txt file and the other is one called ^From.*mat*.
Obviously, it thinks I want the mail written to the "file" ^From etc., but
why? Why doesn't it see that as a conditional. This has also raised another
problem, in as much as both of these files (i.e. the LOGFILE as well) are in
accessible to me via ftp or the servers control panel... I can see them but
not touch them. Tech support suggested this was because Procmail would have
written it with "mail" as a user, and that this therefore blocked me out...

If I can appeal to you guys again for help on this one, I am more than at a
loss to know what to do from here.

Thanks Again,

Mat



"mat" <yubhuntleyremoveboo@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bntrj1$e7m$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...

> Hi all,
>
> I am sorry if this is not the right forum for this sort of question, it
> seemed the best match from the forums I had on offer. Hopefully I will be
> able to find someone who can help.
>
> I have no real experience with 'nix, but do have a shared (Red Hat I

think?)

> hosting account. I am trying to set up a promailrc file to direct incoming
> mail to a script. This works fine when I don't use conditionals:
>
> :0
> | /usr/bin/php /home/myaccount/myscript
>
> However, all conditionals seem to fail....
>
> :0
> * Subject.*urgent
> | /usr/bin/php /home/myaccount/myscript
>
> I have tried so many conditional statements that I do not think it is just
> me getting the syntax wrong... for example, I have tried, as some

tutorials

> suggest, having the colon in the above, etc.:
>
> * Subject:.*urgent
>
> If anyone could suggest any pearls that would help, I would greatly
> appreciate it.
>
> Many Thanks,
>
> Mat.
>
>

[Davide Bianchi]

mat <yubhuntleyremoveboo@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> the LOGFILE mail.txt file and the other is one called ^From.*mat*.

You forgot to put a * at the beginning of the line where the rule
is.

Davide

[mat]

Thanks Davide! (feels a little foolish now!)

Mat

"Davide Bianchi" <davideyeahsure@onlyforfun.net> wrote in message
news:bo0tn8$16gg68$3@ID-18487.news.uni-berlin.de...

> mat <yubhuntleyremoveboo@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> > the LOGFILE mail.txt file and the other is one called ^From.*mat*.

>
> You forgot to put a * at the beginning of the line where the rule
> is.
>
> Davide

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <bo0tn8$16gg68$3@ID-18487.news.uni-berlin.de>,
Davide Bianchi <davideyeahsure@onlyforfun.net> wrote:

>mat <yubhuntleyremoveboo@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>> the LOGFILE mail.txt file and the other is one called ^From.*mat*.

>
>You forgot to put a * at the beginning of the line where the rule
>is.

Note that the syntax of procmailrc is *really*:

:N
rule1
....
ruleN

where N is the number of rule lines. It is just that sometime later, they
decided to allow * to be sort of an "escape character" that would make
something a rule, regardless of the count. So, then the convention became
to put the count as 0 and always use the * feature. I suppose this is
a little easier for the mentally-challenged to wrap their brains around, but
it always struck me as cooky. Thus, I continue to use the original syntax,
which makes more sense to me.

So, in your case, you can do:

:2
^Subject.*...
^From.*...

[James T. Dennis]

Kenny McCormack <gazelle@yin.interaccess.com> wrote:

> In article <bo0tn8$16gg68$3@ID-18487.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> Davide Bianchi <davideyeahsure@onlyforfun.net> wrote:

>>mat <yubhuntleyremoveboo@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>>> the LOGFILE mail.txt file and the other is one called ^From.*mat*.

>>You forgot to put a * at the beginning of the line where the rule
>>is.

> Note that the syntax of procmailrc is *really*:

> :N
> rule1
> ...
> ruleN

> where N is the number of rule lines. It is just that sometime later, they
> decided to allow * to be sort of an "escape character" that would make
> something a rule, regardless of the count. So, then the convention became
> to put the count as 0 and always use the * feature. I suppose this is
> a little easier for the mentally-challenged to wrap their brains around, but
> it always struck me as cooky. Thus, I continue to use the original syntax,
> which makes more sense to me.

I would say that the original syntax was a "little cocky" (as it were)
and tell my students to treat the :0 as a block delimiter. I do teach them
the historical meaning of the digit. I honestly didn't know that the old
form was still supported :)

> So, in your case, you can do:

> :2
> ^Subject.*...
> ^From.*...

--
Jim Dennis,
Starshine: Signed, Sealed, Delivered