On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 04:47:24PM -0700, Philip Guenther wrote:
"Mark E. Mallett" <mem(_at_)mv(_dot_)mv(_dot_)com> writes:
...
Really... seems to me that procmail is the poster child for demand for
extra features. Most useful procmail scripts do all kinds of piping to
external programs to do things that can't be done inside procmail.
Sure, but that's because procmail was designed to be 'extended' via
the shell, just as sieve was designed to be extended via 'require'.
That procmail picked a extension method that allows arbitrary
computation may speak more towards the power of the UNIX tool model
than the needs of a mail filter.
OK, but I was responding to a remark that gave procmail as evidence that
script writers aren't looking for more features. My followup was that
they are indeed: they get other features out of pipes and shell escapes.
Indeed, just a most procmail rcfiles invoke formail or $SENDMAIL,
I would guess that most sieve filters require 'fileinto' or 'vacation'.
Yep. There are different ways of giving more power to the script
writer, including Sieve-style extensions and shell escapes and pipes.
There are others.
Is your concern that sieve extensions require more developer or
admin action than procmail 'extensions'? Some would consider that
a feature, not a bug.
I don't have those concerns, that's not really the conversation I was
in.. I think there's a place for both. I was mainly talking about
variables.
mm