Re: procmail vs. exim (was: Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...)
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 rc files
>
> 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 <.*@uol.com.br>
> /dev/null
>
> (stolen from one of Gene Heskett's recent posts) is more cryptic and
Your opinion. You like tools that speak English. I like tools that
work; I don't care what language they speak.
--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(*) http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling Please don't Cc: me.
- -
Reply to: