Am 2006-03-18 17:39:26, schrieb Gene Heskett:
> >"Oh, I need a mail fil..."
> >
> >"Procmail."
> >
> >"...ter which can check on different hea..."
> >
> >"Yeah, Procmail."
> >
> >"..ders and run it through a bayes..."
> >
> >"Procmail, yea, Procmail..."
> >
> >"..ian filter. Since Exim has filter
Dave Sherohman wrote:
Which brings us right back to the question I initially asked when I
started this subthread: Is there anything that procmail can do which
exim filters cannot?
As I said before someone somewhere could probably find some esoteric
feature procmail has that isn't in Exim'
s. keeling wrote:
To reiterate, "some people can write unreadable code in any language.
Procmail is no exception." I've no problem managing my procmail
recipes. ymmv. hth. hand.
And to reiterate, some languages are pretty much unreadable no matter
what. So please stop trotting out the
Incoming from Steve Lamb:
> s. keeling wrote:
> >Your opinion. You like tools that speak English. I like tools that
> >work; I don't care what language they speak.
>
> I prefer tools which are maintainable by several people, not
> unintelligble to even the author months down the road.
On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 10:16:39PM -0700, s. keeling wrote:
> Incoming from Dave Sherohman:
> > That's beside the point, IMO. All the documentation and syntax
> > checkers in the world aren't going to change the fact that procmail's
> >
> > :0:
> > * ^From: AntiSpam UOL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > /d
s. keeling wrote:
Your opinion. You like tools that speak English. I like tools that
work; I don't care what language they speak.
I prefer tools which are maintainable by several people, not unitelligble
to even the author months down the road. Ease of maintainability is far a far
grea
Incoming from Dave Sherohman:
> On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 10:07:11AM -0700, s. keeling wrote:
> > I'll wager that procmail is one of the better documented utilities out
> > there, considering all those writing about its usage. The tiny-tools
> > project even supplies an emacs syntax checker mode for
On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 10:07:11AM -0700, s. keeling wrote:
> I'll wager that procmail is one of the better documented utilities out
> there, considering all those writing about its usage. The tiny-tools
> project even supplies an emacs syntax checker mode for rc files
That's beside the point, IM
Gene Heskett said:
> And you point is? (ducks and runs) :)
No point, just wanted to make a Rainman joke on D-U. The opportunity
comes up so rarely. :D
--
Steve Lamb
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Saturday 18 March 2006 15:35, Steve Lamb wrote:
>s. keeling said:
>> I doubt you'd bother to flame Fortran as you've been abusing
>> procmail.
>
>Of course, my "abuse" is directly perportional to the amount of
> times any particular, ill-suited, poorly written tool is elevated to
> the statu
s. keeling said:
> I doubt you'd bother to flame Fortran as you've been abusing procmail.
Of course, my "abuse" is directly perportional to the amount of times
any particular, ill-suited, poorly written tool is elevated to the
status of a geek icon when other, bettern designed, just as useful
Incoming from Steve Lamb:
> s. keeling said:
> > I'd also like to mention that some people can write unreadable code in
> > any language, while others take care to make sure their code doesn't
> > get that way. Procmail is no exception.
>
> This is not true. Some languages are designed in su
s. keeling said:
> I'd also like to mention that some people can write unreadable code in
> any language, while others take care to make sure their code doesn't
> get that way. Procmail is no exception.
This is not true. Some languages are designed in such a manner that
readability isn't hig
Incoming from Dave Sherohman:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 09:45:09AM -0700, s. keeling wrote:
> > Incoming from Steve Lamb:
> > > email was. And procmail? Investigated it; it's line noise masquerading
> >
> > than do without. There are alternatives to procmail if you're that
> > averse to it.
>
Dave Ewart wrote:
Is it possible to do user-based filtering using exim for non-root users?
Yes.
What is the exim-equivalent of editing ~/.procmailrc for example?
Editing ~/.forward by default. Though some people I know have changed it
so .forward isn't overloaded and placed it in
Dave Sherohman wrote:
Are there things that procmail
can do that exim filters can't or is it just a case of procmail being
what people have used for years and they're not aware that an
alternative is installed by default in Debian?
A little bit of both I think. No doubt someone, somewhere
On Tuesday, 14.03.2006 at 13:05 -0600, Dave Sherohman wrote:
> [...]
>
> Personally, I agree with Steve that procmail configs look like line
> noise and I also wish to echo his question regarding it: Given that
> exim is installed on Debian systems by default and that exim has a
> much more easil
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 09:45:09AM -0700, s. keeling wrote:
> Incoming from Steve Lamb:
> > email was. And procmail? Investigated it; it's line noise masquerading
>
> You don't like procmail. Great. That's no excuse for insulting it.
> For some of us, it's a remarkable tool; one we'd rather ab
18 matches
Mail list logo
