On Friday, July 11, 2025 1:52:17 PM Mountain Standard Time Reuben Thomas wrote: > On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 at 18:12, Soren Stoutner <so...@debian.org> wrote: > > I think it would be important to document this behavior if users had > > reason to > > believe Maildrop would work in this situation. But, as far as I can tell, > > Maildrop never advertises that it could be used this way. > > Maildrop is often mentioned as a replacement for procmail. > > Given that in the 18 years this bug report has been open, no other user > > > besides yourself has commented on it with the expectation that this > > configuration should work, my guess is that either this is a use case that > > nobody else has ever tried or that the current documentation is sufficient > > for > > users to not expect that this would work. > > I think that's optimistic. Few users bother to report paper-cut bugs like > this one, not least because they often get no response (not the fault of > the overworked package maintainers of course!), and especially not when > there is a workaround (in this case, to use procmail instead of maildrop). > Nevertheless, it is likely that other users have faced the same problem, > and will again.
If a lot of users comment on this bug expressing that they had the same confusion, then I will consider adding some sort of documentation. The problem isn’t that people don’t consider Maildrop a replacement for procmail, the problem is that esmtp is not able to use Maildrop in the way that Maildrop is intended to be used, which is that the program communicating with Maildrop needs to be run as one of the following users: root mail daemon. As far as I know, Maildrop has never advertised that it can be used in this manner by programs not running as one of these three. If there is any documentation that needs to be added, it is probably on esmtp’s side. -- Soren Stoutner so...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
