On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 10:33:27PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Steve M. Robbins wrote: > > > Yes, that's the one. However, it's not clear to me the fault lies in > > the rule. Something is failing to write the attachment to the disk. > > Isn't that done by mutt? > > The attachment is written to disk, the rule invoked, and then when > execution completes the attachment is removed.
Maybe there's a race, then, where 'soffice' sends a signal to the running process (to read the named file) then exits and mutt removes the file before the already-running lowriter wakes up to open the file. -Steve
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
