Re: Mutt displays mail twice... :-s
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 at 22:23 GMT, Tom penned:
> * [27/10/2003 22:54] Monique Y. Herman <spam@bounceswoosh.org>:
>
>> > Has anyone else experienced something like this?
>>
>> How are you calling procmail? If it's from a .forward, can we see
>> that, too?
>
> Well, initially, I thought it was from a .forward. Afterwards, I
> learned that today's Debian/Exim configuration doesn't need a .forward
> to call procmail. As soon as a .procmailrc file exists in the user's
> home directory, mail will be handed over.
Where did you find this information? I'd like to read it myself. I
didn't realize that editing a .procmailrc without having procmail set up
through a .forward could get me into trouble ...
[snip]
> However, the longer this takes, the more I'm beginning to feel a
> little nervous, since it undoubtedly has to do with some
> misconfiguration of mine.
>
> Diff for the two messages of the above example spits out this:
>
> 2c2 < ([127.0.0.1] helo=localhost ident=tom) ---
> > ([127.0.0.1] helo=localhost ident=fetchmail)
> 4,5c4,5 < id 1AEFQo-0006UD-00 < for <tom@localhost>; Mon,
> 27 Oct 2003 23:01:46 +0100 ---
> > id 1AEFP1-0006St-00 for <tom@localhost>; Mon, 27 Oct 2003
> > 22:59:55 +0100
> 9c9 < for tom@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 27 Oct 2003
> 23:01:46 +0100 (CET) ---
> > for tom@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 27 Oct 2003 22:59:55
> > +0100 (CET)
>
> One of the messages seems to be delivered about a minute later than
> the other, and it's obviously treated as a different message
> (exim-id's differ). Me and my newbie-ness suspect it has something to
> do with the first difference (ident=tom <-> ident=fetchmail). Could
> someone enlighten me...?
>
My newbie-ness agrees with you.
I poked at a few of the messages in my mailbox, and none of them seem to
have the ident= thing at all. I don't know what that signifies.
Are you using fetchmail? What does your .fetchmailrc look like?
--
monique
Unless you need to share ultra-sensitive super-spy stuff with me, please
don't email me directly. I will most likely see your post before I read
your mail, anyway.
Reply to: