From: schaefer@zanshin.com  Mon Sep 16 19:20:19 2002
Return-Path: <schaefer@zanshin.com>
Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.example.com
Received: from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1])
	by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CDDD16F16
	for <jm@localhost>; Mon, 16 Sep 2002 19:20:19 +0100 (IST)
Received: from jalapeno [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 16 Sep 2002 19:20:19 +0100 (IST)
Received: from moonbase.zanshin.com (IDENT:root@moonbase.zanshin.com
    [167.160.213.139]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id
    g8GIJ2C04846 for <jm@jmason.org>; Mon, 16 Sep 2002 19:19:02 +0100
Received: from aztec.zanshin.com (IDENT:schaefer@aztec.zanshin.com
    [167.160.213.132]) by moonbase.zanshin.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
    g8GIJJh32385; Mon, 16 Sep 2002 11:19:19 -0700
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 11:19:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@zanshin.com>
To: Justin Mason <yyyy@example.com>
Cc: Simon Matthews <simon@paxonet.com>,
	<spamassassin-talk@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Can someone please tell me how to get an answer from
    this list?
In-Reply-To: <20020916180348.DBE0616F03@example.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0209161114300.17242-100000@aztec.zanshin.com>
Mail-Followup-To: spamassassin-talk@example.sourceforge.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.1 required=7.0
	tests=AWL,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,
	      SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,SUBJECT_IS_LIST,USER_AGENT_PINE
	version=2.50-cvs
X-Spam-Level: 

On Mon, 16 Sep 2002, Justin Mason wrote:

> Simon Matthews said:
> 
> > Procmail 3.21 is reliable as long as none of the recipies fails. I was 
> > hoping to resolve the triplets.txt problem and thus avoid the procmail 
> > "^rom" problem. 
> 
> I doubt it's related, actually -- the "triplets" stuff is in a totally
> unrelated area of code.

The procmail bug happens when the filter program does something that 
procmail doesn't expect.  Exactly what that something is, hasn't been
confirmed by anyone on the procmail list.  It might be exiting with a
nonzero status, or it might be producing output on the standard error,
or it might be something else entirely.

So Simon is attempting to get SA to run flawlessly, because then it can't
tickle the procmail bug.  This isn't a fix, it's a band-aid, but because
he apparently doesn't have the option of installing a newer procmail ...


