Am 29.10.2014 um 01:39 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:
On 10/28/2014 5:31 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:Am 29.10.2014 um 01:23 schrieb Ted Mittelstaedt:I think that one of the things that up and coming Linux admins are supposed to do is write a "Procmail is dead" article and post it somewhere. It sure seems like it there's enough of them out there. Procmail isn't dead. However, the Procmail website is simply in an awful and atrocious state. It has been at least a half a decade since the server the website is on stopped hosting the distro, which is frankly ridiculous. OK I get that the domain owner doesn't want to spring the money for the bandwidth but there are better ways to handle it than an HTTP error. I also get that the domain owner isn't interested in fixing his HTML. OK whatever. There's a lot of distributions that include Procmail and lots and lots of people using it. There's still people writing patches for it for their distros. Yes it lacks a maintainer which is a shame. But it is even more shameful that RedHat and the other pay distributions aren't stepping up and picking up maintenance of itfrankly in times of LMTP and Sieve there is hardly a need to use procmail - it is used because "i know it and it just works" - so why should somebody step in and maintain it while nobody is forced to use itFrom my understanding (as I don't use Dovecot and Sieve) you cannot pipe mail from the Sieve implementation into other programs, once Sieve is done with it, that's it. Right there that's a non-starter for me, I'm afraid.
true - on the other hand i don't use dovecot except as roxy and SASL provider and did not have any need for procmail over 6 years now
sieve is a standard an dnot dovecot specific
I'm a Unixy brat. Procmail is unixy, some of these more recent Linux bits of software are more Windows than Unix. Ignoring pipes is very bad, if I wanted greasy kid stuff software I'd run Windows on my servers.
me too - but i don't use pipes in context of untrusted input while incomign mail is taht sort of traffic and at least recent issues proves to be right
As for why should someone maintain it, people already maintain it - the distros maintain their "versions" You want a single maintainer to coordinate patches so people aren't re-inventing the wheel
wrong answer or question convince someone to take over upstream or accept it is deaduntil that happens be happy it is still shipped from distributions instead get dropped as abandonware at all
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
