On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 12:10:15AM +0000, Peter Whysall said:
> Stephen Gran wrote:
> >On Wed, Dec 29, 2004 at 10:39:17PM +0000, Peter Whysall said:
> >
> >>Peter Bowyer wrote:
> >>
> >>>Are the user(s) in question being caught by your procmail or maildrop
> >>>routers?
> >>>
> >>>Please post the output of a debug delivery.
> >>
> >>I hope this is what you want; it's rather long.
> >>16991 check verify = recipient
> >
> >It's enough - look at the routing below:
>
> Given that procmail is not present on the system, and maildrop is
> executed from .forward, is it reasonable, in the interests of removing
> unnecessary complexity, to remove the procmail and maildrop routers? Is
> this likely to break anything as a side-effect?
It appears that you use maildrop, so it is unclear to me why you don't
just use the maildrop router, but to each their own. Leaving the
procmail router does no harm if procmail is not installed, but if you
want the shortest possible configuration that gets the job done, you can
of course remove it.
> Additionally, my (admittedly somewhat uninformed) reading of the above
> is that in the final stage, the local_user router does indeed pass the
> message to the maildir_home transport. This raises a couple of questions:
>
> * How can I produce diagnostics of what happens in this final phase of
> delivery?
> * Have I already done so, and am simply too dense to see it in the debug
> output?
The local_user router would only deliver to maildir_home transport if it
was ever reached - since routing stops at forward_file, it never makes
it that far. Investigate maildrop.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Gran | If it's working, the diagnostics say |
| steve@??? | it's fine. If it's not working, the |
| http://www.lobefin.net/~steve | diagnostics say it's fine. - A proposed |
| | addition to rules for realtime |
| | programming |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
