'From Bill Leach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'
On Mon, May 04, 1998 at 04:19:31AM +, Rev. Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sun, May 03, 1998 at 11:40:45PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > We are probably wasting everyone's time now by not looking to see just what
> > fetchmail/procmail interface actually i
On Sun, May 03, 1998 at 11:40:45PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> We are probably wasting everyone's time now by not looking to see just what
> fetchmail/procmail interface actually is...
>
> As I understand it, the fetchmail/procmail interface is a kludge.
No, actually it's a pipe.. =>
'From Bill Leach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'
On Sat, May 02, 1998 at 11:39:44PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On Sun, 3 May 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > 'From Bill Leach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'
> >
> > I don't think so Jason...
> >
> > Fetchmail is also pretty robust about mail handling but i
On Sun, 3 May 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 'From Bill Leach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'
>
> I don't think so Jason...
>
> Fetchmail is also pretty robust about mail handling but it expect whatever
> it 'hands a message too' to do something with the message.
>
> I won't even pretend to know the nat
The procmail documentation makes it clear that, if you have a 'real' mda
which hands mail off to procmail via .forward, then if procmail fails it
will leave the message enqueued in the mta.
So if disk space is not a problem, install smail or sendmail along with
procmail, and try that.
Carl
[EMAI
'From Bill Leach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'
I don't think so Jason...
Fetchmail is also pretty robust about mail handling but it expect whatever
it 'hands a message too' to do something with the message.
I won't even pretend to know the nature of the problems but I suspect that
it deals with the idea
6 matches
Mail list logo
