Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 05:41:36 GMT, s keeling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > I agree procmail can do it (I do it with procmail). I question the > > "Very easy" bit. procmail is not easy to control. If you've the > > time to learn its quirks, it's great. However, it's somewhat like a > > C programmer trying to wrap his head around C++ (OOP/OOD). It takes > > a lot of "I WANT to do this!" to get it. Months of it. Perhaps > > years. > > > > Easier might be mailfilter. I've never used it, but it's purported > > to be the English language equivalent to procmail's "modem line > > noise" syntax, and as powerful. > > I've always found procmail to be underpowered and have an
You're the first person I've seen to describe procmail as "underpowered." I would not list that as one of its attributes. Perhaps it's difficult to figure out how to get it to do $THAT, but (in my experience) it can do $THAT. However, I'm past the curve. *I* have no trouble getting procmail to do what I want it to do. Whether the price is worth the effort for others is another question. If I was starting over, I'd probably go with the alternatives. > unreasonable learning curve. I prefer using mailagent, which can do > far more than procmail, but seems to be easier to set up. Another alternative, thanks. -- Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. (*) http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling Linux Counter #80292 - - http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html Please, don't Cc: me. Spammers! http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling/emails.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
