You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Ky...@transplace.com on 2005/02/02 17:59:43 UTC

lock file question

Which of these is correct in my procmailrc if I use spamc?



:0fw: spamassassin.lock
* < 256000
| spamc


or


:0fw: spamc.lock
* < 256000
| spamc



I have seen it done both ways in examples.


Thanks,

Kyle Reynolds
972-731-4731
KyleReynolds@Transplace.com

Re: lock file question

Posted by Theo Van Dinter <fe...@kluge.net>.

On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 10:59:43AM -0600, KyleReynolds@transplace.com wrote:
> Which of these is correct in my procmailrc if I use spamc?
> :0fw: spamassassin.lock
> or
> :0fw: spamc.lock
> 
> I have seen it done both ways in examples.

Yeah, it doesn't matter as long as you're consistent.

-- 
Randomly Generated Tagline:
"... and what do we have on this thing ..?  a cuisinart?" - Space Balls

Re: lock file question

Posted by jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>.

From: <Ky...@transplace.com>
> Which of these is correct in my procmailrc if I use spamc?
> 
> 
> 
> :0fw: spamassassin.lock
> * < 256000
> | spamc
> 
> 
> or
> 
> 
> :0fw: spamc.lock
> * < 256000
> | spamc

Both.
{^_^}

Re: lock file question

Posted by Martin Schröder <ms...@artcom-gmbh.de>.

On 2005-02-02 10:59:43 -0600, KyleReynolds@transplace.com wrote:
> I have seen it done both ways in examples.

Both. Is it so difficult to read procmailrc(5)?

Best regards
    Martin
-- 
               Martin Schröder, ms@artcom-gmbh.de
     ArtCom GmbH, Lise-Meitner-Str 5, 28359 Bremen, Germany
          Voice +49 421 20419-44 / Fax +49 421 20419-10
                    http://www.artcom-gmbh.de