Re: Recent spam increase
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:58:28 +0200, Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.org> said:
> On 2006-10-17 03:19:23 +0000, s. keeling wrote:
>> You're the first person I've seen to describe procmail as
>> "underpowered." I would not list that as one of its attributes.
>> Perhaps it's difficult to figure out how to get it to do $THAT, but
>> (in my experience) it can do $THAT.
> I couldn't find how to *both* log something to a file and add some
> text to a bounced message, as these two features are both performed
> with LOG="...", whether LOGFILE is defined or not.
This is easy in mailagent
> procmail doesn't know anything about MIME.
Hmm. Neither does mailagent by default -- but you can easily
build a new command or plugin into mailagent using MIME::* packages.
> procmail has a fixed size buffer for user rules. It can be extended
> by modifying LINEBUF, but it is difficult to know whether the new
> value is sufficient or not, in particular when one modifies rules.
Not a problem for mailagent.
> One can't easily OR conditions (without bloating the procmailrc).
This is trivial.
> One can't easily invert a condition on a variable name.
This is trivial.
> It is difficult to debug a procmailrc file.
mailagent has awesome debugging facilities. First, you can
trace what rules the mail went through -- and then you can have debug
levels set from 1 throu 20, each level getting more and more verbose,
to have a fine grained log, almost instruction by source instruction,
to track down problems.
manoj
--
There's a little picture of ED MCMAHON doing BAD THINGS to JOAN RIVERS
in a $200,000 MALIBU BEACH HOUSE!!
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: