No, the second rule should ONLY process when a message passes the first rule (and does NOT get bounced out to gmail.) I believe, please correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe the way you've rewritten it, rule 2 will ALWAYS run, regardless of the outcome of rule 1. This will result in duplicate message being sent to the second e-mail address.
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 9:10 PM, jdow <jdow@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The basic rule to remember with procmail is that once the email is
delivered processing is ended. So if the rule passes you must then
clone the email and deliver the clone. That allows the rules to keep
on processing.
I imagine you also want the second rule to continue processing as well.
Something akin to
:0
* !^X-Forwarded-For: kirash4@xxxxxxxxx ashley@xxxxxxxxxx{
* !^X-Forwarded-For: kirash4@xxxxxxxxx ashley@xxxxxxxxxxxx
* !^From.*kirash4@xxxxxxxxx
* !^To.*ashley@papillon.pcraft.com
:0 c
! kirash4@xxxxxxxxx
}
:0c{
* ^X-Forwarded-For: kirash4@xxxxxxxxx ashley@xxxxxxxxxx
* ^X-Forwarded-For: kirash4@xxxxxxxxx ashley@xxxxxxxxxxxx
:0 c
! salesdept
}
{^_^}
On 2013/01/23 20:00, Ashley M. Kirchner wrote:
The way this should work is as follows:
- new e-mail arrives at the recipient's box and procmail picks it up and checks
the X-Forward-For header
- if the header does NOT contain any of those listed, it forwards the message to
the specified gmail address
> STOP <
- if the header exists and contains any of the matches listed, the message gets
dropped into the recipient's inbox
AND
- it is at this point that I want it to also forward a copy of said message to
the second e-mail address
The first rule works as expected. Message comes in, first rule checks it and
upon failing, bounces back out to gmail. Nothing happens after that. When the
message returns, it passes the first rule and gets dropped in the recipient's
box. When I added the second rule, nothing changed. The first keeps running as
is and the second is simply ignored.
Now, perhaps I'm wrong in thinking that when it comes back and passes the first
rule, it will also run through the second rule. Is this a case where I need to
write things wrapped in a nest? Sort of like an IF .. THEN .. ELSE?
A
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 7:50 PM, jdow <jdow@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jdow@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:<mailto:kirash4@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:kirash4@xxxxxxxxx>>
On 2013/01/23 15:28, Ashley M. Kirchner wrote:
Ok, I'm still trying to figure this out. On the new, test account, i
can get it
to log so I just need to figure out the other two. However, I recreated the
same recipe on the test account and what I'm seeing in the log is the
first part
of the recipe only, it doesn't seem to do anything with the second part.
So this (adjusted for the test account):
LOGFILE=/var/log/procmail
VERBOSE=yes
:0
* !^X-Forwarded-For: kirash4@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:kirash4@xxxxxxxxx>
mytest@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mytest@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:ashley@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ashley@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> <mailto:kirash4@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:kirash4@xxxxxxxxx>>
mytest@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mytest@xxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:ashley@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:kirash4@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:kirash4@xxxxxxxxx>>
* !^To.*mytest@papillon.pcraft.__com <mailto:mytest@papillon.pcraft.com>
<mailto:ashley@papillon.__pcraft.com <mailto:ashley@papillon.pcraft.com>>
! kirash4@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:kirash4@xxxxxxxxx> <mailto:ashley@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:kirash4@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:kirash4@xxxxxxxxx>>
mytest@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mytest@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:ashley@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ashley@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> <mailto:kirash4@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:kirash4@xxxxxxxxx>>
mytest@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mytest@xxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:ashley@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:salesdept@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:salesdept@xxxxxxxxxx>>users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:users@lists.fedoraproject.org>
Ashley, it might pay to explicitly say, in words, what you think you
want to do if the first rule passes, if the first rule does not pass
and the second rule passes, and if neither rule passes.
As it is your description of passing the first rule is the correct
action for what you've developed as a rule. You have delivered the
email and rule processing ceases at that point. So you might have
to clone the output of the first rule to pass it to the second rule
IF that is the action you want based on your disappointment at these
rules doing what you told them to do.
{^_^}
--
users mailing listhttps://admin.fedoraproject.__org/mailman/listinfo/users
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
<https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users>
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/__Mailing_list_guidelines
<http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines>
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
--
users mailing list
users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
-- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
