[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: OFF-TOPIC (How do you guys sort your mail?)



Hi,
>>"Stephen" == Stephen J Carpenter <sjc@mgh.harvard.edu> writes:

 Stephen> On Thu, Aug 20, 1998 at 01:40:25PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:

 Stephen> I missed most of this discussion but...  whats wrong with
 Stephen> the old standby procmail?
 >> Nothing, if you do not find it under powered. 

 Stephen> hmm [example of minimalist filtering deleted, with
 Stephen> provisions of being able to call external scripts]

 Stephen> hmm well...it gets the job done for me ;)

	Great. I am happy for you. As I said, for simple tasks,
 procmail is worth looking at. This is not a my software is better
 than your software game. Procmail is quick, simple, and handles the
 needs of most of the people out there, and it definitely has its
 place. 

	But there are those of us who have found procmail rather
 simple minded and limiting, and who need to be able to do more than
 just plain fintering with their mail handling software (like set up a
 generic email command processor complete with super users, passwords,
 authenticated command execution, access control; or to set up a
 program distribution system that understands source archives, patch
 numbers, and can deliver patches 22-28 of your latest release to
 someone who is current upto patch 21, with no manual
 intervention). Nice to have an integrated vacation program (far more
 featureful than the external vacation program), since it can interact
 with othewr rules. Nice to be able to extend the software, to count
 vote you happen to be running. Nice to be able to write a 2 line
 extension to remap decnet addresses.

	For people with more ambitous requirements, there is
 mailagent. 

	manoj
 procmail == ed; mailagent ==  Emacs
-- 
 I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good
 thing... Thomas Jefferson
Manoj Srivastava  <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E


Reply to: