On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 08:22:52PM -0500, Michael D Schleif wrote: > You know, I've been wondering about this for quite sometime. > > What are the tradeoffs between these two scenarios? > > fetchmail -> exim -> procmail > > fetchmail -> procmail > > There must be something that exim can/does do that procmail cannot? > > What do you think? Exim can do things procmail can't do. It can send mail, it can receive mail (you don't even need fetchmail :), etc. But for the case of dealing with mail from fetchmail, I think using procmail directly is better. I switched recently. I don't know what happens if the message doesn't match one of the procmail rules though (where does it go). I just made sure I have a catchall rule at the end of my .procmailrc: :0 /home/bijan/Maildir/ In my case there were really many reasons to switch over to procmail. One was that fetchmail would quickly give all my messages to exim which would then run procmail for each message, each procmail running a seperate spamassassin or spamc (once I was up to using almost 700 megs of swap). But by running procmail from fetchmail only one gets run at a time. I'm sure that there are cases when you really might want to have exim in the chain, but I really don't need it. Right now the only reason I have exim on my system at all is for sending messages from mutt. And one of these days I'm going to add SMTP to mutt (I think there's a patch out there). I know, I know, if I remove exim I won't be able to receive annoying warnings from cron, etc. Or have users send mail to each other locally. It's just that every other package I apt-get install just works (even X works sometimes :). I mean I had less trouble setting up bind at work. I'm pretty sure I'm violating 57 different RFCs just by sending mail through my misconfigured exim. Just my worthless opinion, Bijan
Attachment:
pgpg1lUZvqW0C.pgp
Description: PGP signature