From guenther@gac.edu Thu Mar  9 17:14:50 2000
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 09:34:51 -0600
From: Philip Guenther <guenther@gac.edu>
To: Martin Mokrejs <mmokrejs@natur.cuni.cz>
Subject: Re: Procmail handling of spawn_process exit code 

Martin Mokrejs <mmokrejs@natur.cuni.cz> writes:
>Philip, I'd have few basic questions. I wish to hear them now in this
>context, not look into FAQ, sorry. ;-)
>
>What's the differenc ebetween "nested block" and "nested recipe"?

When the action of a recipe starts with an open brace followed by a
whitespace characters, then it's a nested block action.  The "nested
block" is everything from that open brace to the matching close brace.

A "nested recipe" is a recipe inside a nested block.  Similarly, a
"nested assignment" is a variable assignment inside a nested block.

A "nesting recipe" is a recipe whose action is a nested block.


>On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Philip Guenther wrote:
>
>> Federico Tesei <f.tesei@tecsiel.it> writes:
>> ...
>> >So the way I' ve found to accomplish the aforementioned task 
>> >is  this recipe:
>> >
>> >:0
>> >* ^From.*
>> >* ^X-Application-Tag:.*
>> >{
>> >        :0 cwr
>> >        | $TEST
>> >EXITCODE = $?
>> >}
>> > 
>> >Is that in your opinion a 'safe' recipe to do this task ?
>> 
>> Bingo!  The 'c' tells procmail to just deliver a copy of the message
>> to the program, so it keep going after that, whether or not the action
>
>> was successfull.  Mean while, the nested block keeps messages without
>> the X-Application-Tag: header field from having EXITCODE set.
>> Any message stored by the nested recipe above must necessarily have an
>> X-Application-Tag: header field.  If you're seeing messages in the $TEST
>> folder without that field, it must be from some other recipe.