Re: CoC / procedural abuse
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:08:11PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2014, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> > Can we just generate that procmail file or at least the section in
> > question?
>
> Not easily, no.
It's difficult to imagine this presenting a problem. Procmail reads on-disk
config on each invocation - it doesn't run as a daemon - and it's trivial to
include additional rules files.
To wit,
INCLUDERC=$HOME/some_esoteric_path/procmail_rules/spam-sources
INCLUDERC=$HOME/some_esoteric_path/procmail_rules/coc-violators
etc. The code that installs a new version oc coc-violators can doubtless jump
through arbitrary hoops to minimize any sort of race - swapping in a newly
generated file will be awfully close to atomic in any case.
The source for such a file could be as simple as a terminate date and an
email address, or it might also include a pointer to the documented CoC
abuse.
Of course, procmail isn't forgiving in the face of syntax errors, so using an
automated tool to help generate correct files can only be a good thing. If
the listmaster workload is such that it's not feasible to implement
reasonable limits for ban periods using existing mechanisms, then I imagine
such a tool would be welcome.
I'll be happy to volunteer time to help implement it, although I have no
doubt that Ean is way ahead of me here.
--
The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig
to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which. - G. Orwell
Reply to: