fetchmail-users

[fetchmail-users] Fetchmail error "requires envelope option"

[Anne W. <can...@go...>]

This is the third attempt to get this message through - I presume that the 
spam filter was blocking it, so I've removed the exclamation mark.

I'm now fetching my husband's mail, as well as my own (using fetchmail with 
cron, running as david), but I'm getting:

fetchmail: warning: multidrop for pop3.mailbox.co.uk requires envelope option!
fetchmail: warning: Do not ask for support if all mail goes to postmaster!

This never happens when I collect my mail (fetchmail with cron, running as 
anne).  Googling hasn't come up with anything useful.  What is this about?  
Thanks

Anne

Re: [fetchmail-users] Fetchmail error "requires envelope option"

[Rob M. <rob...@gm...>]

[ CCing Anne ]

On 8/23/07, Anne Wilson <can...@go...> wrote:
> This is the third attempt to get this message through - I presume that the
> spam filter was blocking it, so I've removed the exclamation mark.

And the third copy that's reached the mailing list.  There's no sign
that the messages are bouncing instead of reaching you (I'm one of the
list admins) - have you checked your own Spam folder?

However, please see the archive:

> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/fetchmail-users

Where you'll find not one, but 2 replies to your previous emails.

-- 
                 Please keep list traffic on the list.

Rob MacGregor
      Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he
        doesn't become a monster.                  Friedrich Nietzsche

Re: [fetchmail-users] Fetchmail error "requires envelope option"

[Rob M. <rob...@gm...>]

[ Sent to the list so others know what happened ]

On 8/27/07, Anne Wilson <can...@go...> wrote:
>
> Mystery solved.  It was not being blocked by the list, nor by googlemail.  It
> was being forwarded to me, as it should be.  However, the problem was a
> recently added procmail recipe, obviously faulty.  When procmail encounters a
> problem that confuses it, it puts the messages 'in a safe place'.  I have
> just found the messages with another 100 or so, to be sorted through.
> Thankfully, the fetchmail recipe was the only one following the faulty one,
> or there could have been thousands.
>
> Apologies to all for wasting bandwidth.  Now to address the problem.

Hey, at least you've learned to check the destination of last resort.
It's something that's worth checking regularly and, along with your
mail log, is something worth checking any time things seem to be going
wrong.

It's also worth saying that any time there are problems with mail
to/from a list it's worth checking any archive of that list to see if
mail is reaching it, and if others are replying.  It's also worth
trying contacting the list administrators via the -owner address (in
this case fetchmail-users-owner@), which you did indirectly do in this
case ;)

-- 
                 Please keep list traffic on the list.

Rob MacGregor
      Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he
        doesn't become a monster.                  Friedrich Nietzsche

Re: [fetchmail-users] Fetchmail error "requires envelope option"

[Anne W. <can...@go...>]

On Monday 27 Aug 2007, Rob MacGregor wrote:
> [ Sent to the list so others know what happened ]
>
> On 8/27/07, Anne Wilson <can...@go...> wrote:
> > Mystery solved.  It was not being blocked by the list, nor by googlemail.
> >  It was being forwarded to me, as it should be.  However, the problem was
> > a recently added procmail recipe, obviously faulty.  When procmail
> > encounters a problem that confuses it, it puts the messages 'in a safe
> > place'.  I have just found the messages with another 100 or so, to be
> > sorted through. Thankfully, the fetchmail recipe was the only one
> > following the faulty one, or there could have been thousands.
> >
> > Apologies to all for wasting bandwidth.  Now to address the problem.
>
> Hey, at least you've learned to check the destination of last resort.
> It's something that's worth checking regularly and, along with your
> mail log, is something worth checking any time things seem to be going
> wrong.
>
This happened to me just once before, about three years ago.  I had looked for 
the missing emails in what I remembered to be the place I found them last 
time, but things have moved on :-)

> It's also worth saying that any time there are problems with mail
> to/from a list it's worth checking any archive of that list to see if
> mail is reaching it, and if others are replying.  It's also worth
> trying contacting the list administrators via the -owner address (in
> this case fetchmail-users-owner@), which you did indirectly do in this
> case ;)

If the faulty recipe had been earlier in the queue, I'd have realised that 
messages were missing from many folders, and found the problem much quicker.  
Just the way it goes, I guess.  I hadn't thought of checking the archives, 
though, and that's a really stupid oversight.

Anne

Re: [fetchmail-users] Fetchmail error "requires envelope option"

[Matthias A. <mat...@gm...>]

Rob MacGregor schrieb:

> Hey, at least you've learned to check the destination of last resort.
> It's something that's worth checking regularly and, along with your
> mail log, is something worth checking any time things seem to be going
> wrong.

A general hint is to consider maildrop http://www.courier-mta.org/maildrop/
as a filtering engine that is much easier to get working properly than
procmail.

It's more conservative than procmail in that it will simply defer all mail
on syntax errors in the file, or defer particular messages (pushing them
back to the queue where you'll see them with mailq(1)) on delivery errors
-- rather than dumping mail to a random place that procmail would call safe
but one never checks in a whole lifetime...

There are several design decisions in procmail that I have called and do
still call stupid, to the outrage of the procmail maintainers who call this
freedom of choice (which maildrop also offers BTW).
One man's meat is another man's poison.

Re: [fetchmail-users] Fetchmail error "requires envelope option"

[Anne W. <can...@go...>]

On Tuesday 28 Aug 2007, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Rob MacGregor schrieb:
> > Hey, at least you've learned to check the destination of last resort.
> > It's something that's worth checking regularly and, along with your
> > mail log, is something worth checking any time things seem to be going
> > wrong.
>
> A general hint is to consider maildrop http://www.courier-mta.org/maildrop/
> as a filtering engine that is much easier to get working properly than
> procmail.
>
> It's more conservative than procmail in that it will simply defer all mail
> on syntax errors in the file, or defer particular messages (pushing them
> back to the queue where you'll see them with mailq(1)) on delivery errors
> -- rather than dumping mail to a random place that procmail would call safe
> but one never checks in a whole lifetime...
>
> There are several design decisions in procmail that I have called and do
> still call stupid, to the outrage of the procmail maintainers who call this
> freedom of choice (which maildrop also offers BTW).

Points taken.  As I only administer a home LAN, and that now simpler than it 
used to be, I went for what seemed to be the most common choice - and 
therefore offering best support. :-)  I'm falling behind in things that are 
started and need completing, so I don't want to change at this moment.  When 
things get quieter I'll read up and see whether the change is right for me.

> One man's meat is another man's poison.

Absolutely.  I appreciate the help given by all.

Anne