On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:41:41PM +0300, Rowan Thorpe wrote:
> PS: Even when using (peek) I think [A] the second patch (for not
> chomping the final "^J") may still be applicable (at least for the
> last email that appears in the spool file), and also *perhaps* [B] the
> first line of the main patch - for skipping trailing timestamp on the
> "From " line (but maybe that was just needed to deal with a

Yes, I kept these of your changes. I uploaded a new release this morning
immediately, so you might check when you have time.

> PPPS: I see you use (protect) to ensure spool-processing is
> uninterruptible by signals, but don't see file-locking of the
> spool-file, to avoid race-conditions with the mail-server during

Yes, this would be nice, but it is not under my control. The pil way would be
with 'ctl', but that is not obeyed by exim.

On my server this is currently no problem, as I kill the process only at times
when it is not yet starting the next fetch. Still it would be better of course.
"postfix -l" doesn't work here.

♪♫ Alex

UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe

Reply via email to