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 ...

from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1])
	by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BC3316F1F
	for <jm@localhost>; Thu,  5 Sep 2002 11:26:27 +0100 (IST)
from jalapeno [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Thu, 05 Sep 2002 11:26:27 +0100 (IST)
from outgoing.securityfocus.com (outgoing3.securityfocus.com
    [66.38.151.27]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id
    g84K5EZ17306 for <jm@jmason.org>; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 21:05:14 +0100
from lists.securityfocus.com (lists.securityfocus.com
    [66.38.151.19]) by outgoing.securityfocus.com (Postfix) with QMQP id
    F07E1A30F7; Wed,  4 Sep 2002 13:58:15 -0600 (MDT)
(qmail 11927 invoked from network); 4 Sep 2002 18:56:23 -0000
"'bmord@icon-nicholson.com'" <bmord@icon-nicholson.com>,
	"Webappsec Securityfocus.Com" <webappsec@securityfocus.com>,
	SECPROG Securityfocus <SECPROG@securityfocus.com>
RE: use of base image / delta image for automated recovery from a
    ttacks
No, hits=-6.2 required=7.0
	tests=EXCHANGE_SERVER,KNOWN_MAILING_LIST,SPAM_PHRASE_01_02,
	      SUPERLONG_LINE
	version=2.50-cvs
From GlennEverhart@firstusa.com  Thu Sep  5 11:26:32 2002