Am 2006-03-18 17:39:26, schrieb Gene Heskett:
> >"Oh, I need a mail fil..."
> >
> >"Procmail."
> >
> >"...ter which can check on different hea..."
> >
> >"Yeah, Procmail."
> >
> >"..ders and run it through a bayes..."
> >
> >"Procmail, yea, Procmail..."
> >
> >"..ian filter. Since Exim has filter
On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 10:16:39PM -0700, s. keeling wrote:
> Incoming from Dave Sherohman:
> > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > /d
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
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, IM
Gene Heskett said:
> And you point is? (ducks and runs) :)
No point, just wanted to make a Rainman joke on D-U. The opportunity
comes up so rarely. :D
--
Steve Lamb
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Saturday 18 March 2006 15:35, Steve Lamb wrote:
>s. keeling said:
>> I doubt you'd bother to flame Fortran as you've been abusing
>> procmail.
>
>Of course, my "abuse" is directly perportional to the amount of
> times any particular, ill-suited, poorly written tool is elevated to
> the statu
s. keeling said:
> I doubt you'd bother to flame Fortran as you've been abusing procmail.
Of course, my "abuse" is directly perportional to the amount of times
any particular, ill-suited, poorly written tool is elevated to the
status of a geek icon when other, bettern designed, just as useful
Incoming from Steve Lamb:
> s. keeling said:
> > I'd also like to mention that some people can write unreadable code in
> > any language, while others take care to make sure their code doesn't
> > get that way. Procmail is no exception.
>
> This is not true. Some languages are designed in su
s. keeling said:
> I'd also like to mention that some people can write unreadable code in
> any language, while others take care to make sure their code doesn't
> get that way. Procmail is no exception.
This is not true. Some languages are designed in such a manner that
readability isn't hig
Incoming from Dave Sherohman:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 09:45:09AM -0700, s. keeling wrote:
> > Incoming from Steve Lamb:
> > > email was. And procmail? Investigated it; it's line noise masquerading
> >
> > than do without. There are alternatives to procmail if you're that
> > averse to it.
>
Dave Sherohman wrote:
Are there things that procmail
can do that exim filters can't or is it just a case of procmail being
what people have used for years and they're not aware that an
alternative is installed by default in Debian?
A little bit of both I think. No doubt someone, somewhere
On Tuesday, 14.03.2006 at 13:05 -0600, Dave Sherohman wrote:
> [...]
>
> Personally, I agree with Steve that procmail configs look like line
> noise and I also wish to echo his question regarding it: Given that
> exim is installed on Debian systems by default and that exim has a
> much more easil
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 09:45:09AM -0700, s. keeling wrote:
> Incoming from Steve Lamb:
> > email was. And procmail? Investigated it; it's line noise masquerading
>
> You don't like procmail. Great. That's no excuse for insulting it.
> For some of us, it's a remarkable tool; one we'd rather ab
13 matches
Mail list logo
