Re: Mail processing tool
And R.DElia@starcomitalia.com spoke unto the world. And said:
> From: Florent Rougon <f.rougon@free.fr>
>> Jonas J Linde <jonas@init.se> wrote:
>>
>> >> Procmail is a big tool, I need something different: small, reliable,
>> >> secure.
>> >
>> > Big? The gzipped source tar ball is 227kB. If you want something that
>> > processes mail in a fully customizable way I'm pretty sure you won't
>> find
>> > anything much smaller than that.
>>
> Great! 227kb of source tar ball... Netfilter's code is, much or less,
> the same. I think you consider netfilter a small tool, isn't you?
Eh, we're talking about combining this with gnupg which is 3.5MB in
source tar ball; so yes, I'd consider procmail a reasonably small tool
considering that full customization was one of the requirements.
>> Well, the procmail source code is written in a very... bizarre style.
>> In my book, it doesn't qualify as reliable.
> I agree.
Yeah, the code isn't all that beautiful but at least the author is using
the same style consistently. I've seen worse; a lot worse...
>> And please, don't think you can start flaming right away because you
>> have been using procmail for the past ten years or so and never had the
>> slightest impression of it losing a mail. That is not the point. The
>> point is that its source code is very unpleasant to me, so *I* wouldn't
>> rely on it for anything serious. That has nothing to do with your
>> experience of its use.
> I agree again.
Flaming? You asked a question, I gave a suggestion and there was a
disagreement about the size of the tools. Where is the flaming in that?
Or did you just agree to the latter part of that paragraph? In that case
I agree too.
> Moreover I think fetchmail/procmail solution doesn't fit my needs. Stop.
But of course. I'm not arguing that you should use these tools against
your judgement. I would be interested in hearing if you find any better
solution though. As was properly guessed I have been using the fetch- /
procmail combination for ten years or so; apparently without loosing
mail; the tricky part is to avoid mail loops. ;)
> If someone has another idea...great.
Not me, sorry.
> Otherwise...thanks.
You're welcome. :)
--
Jonas J Linde <jonas@init.se> http://www.init.se/~jonas/ +46-707-492496
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GE/IT$ d-() s++: a C++(++++)$ UBVL++(++++)$ P++ L+++$ E++ W++(-) N+ o--
K+ !w(+) O M@ V PS+ PE++(-) Y+ PGP+>++ t 5 X R-@ tv- b+>++ DI D++ G++(-)
e+++ h--(----) r++ y++++ UF+
Reply to: