From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.2) Gecko/20010725
Description of problem:
Fails to save message in Maildir format, complaining about not being create
temp file. This happens when the recipe is in a separate file included in
.procmailrc through INCLUDERC.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Steps to Reproduce:
1.Put recipe this recipe in file "~/.procmailrc.d/voluntary-lists"
# Note the use of Maildir format.
2. Put this in .procmailrc:
3.Receive message that should fit the recipe. (I just used mutt to bounce
a message from the galeon-devel list.)
Actual Results: Get this in the procmail log:
procmail: Couldn't create or rename temp file
From brian Wed Aug 15 08:02:36 2001
Subject: Re: [Galeon-devel] [patch] change toolbar settings on the fly
Folder: m6/new/997887756.7977_3.OM | $NOTIFY_COMmojave 4132
Note that the message was saved in the m6 folder (I had DEFAULT=m6/ in
Also, this does NOT happen when the recipe is directly placed in
.procmailrc (instead of using INCLUDERC).
Expected Results: Message should have been saved in galeon-devel folder.
This is a known bug in versions 3.20 and 3.21. I'll fire you guys a note as
soon as 3.22 is released (Real Soon Now). The fix is trivial: replace the
strlcat with strlcpy in unique(). Oh wait, GNU libc doesn't include strlc*! So
much for trivial fixes. Implement strlcpy(), then make the above change.
Or wait till 3.22 (which includes its own implementation of strlcpy).
Version 3.22 has been released:
3.22-1 has been built,w hich should fix the reported problem.
If RedHat chooses to use unstable/development software for their Red Hat
releases (procmail 3.2x was not declared stable till 3.22), would it *PLEASE* be
possible to release a proper Errata if severe bugs like these are being found ?
I have LOST, or at least been DELAYED, IMPORTANT mail (the bug also triggers
when using the procmail receipes out of the mutt FAQ to tag PGP/gnupg signed
emails and deliver to maildirs). I wonder how many other unsuspecting people
upgraded to 7.2 and will notice only after some time that their procmail
receipes don't work anymore.
The author mailed us about the latest available in the 3.1x series had security
problems, and that these were fixed in the 3.20 he just had released.
Any chance of getting an errata for this? This functionality worked in RHL 6.2
until the security fix came along and broke it. :)
We'll make an errata if a new security issue appears.
It's a severe functionality issue -- the update is basically broken. Shouldn't
that be enough?