Roderick Schertler <roderick(_at_)argon(_dot_)org> writes:
On Wed, 02 Apr 1997 12:44:30 -0600, Philip Guenther
<guenther(_at_)gac(_dot_)edu> said:
I'll note that you don't have to remove the 'm' flag for this to work,
you just have to learn how to loop within procmail using recursive
INCLUDERCs.
Whoa. That was heavy. Sure, it's possible, but is it sane? I think
that it makes more sense to remove the m flag from the procmail mailer,
if that's the amount of increased complexity it takes to properly handle
multiple recipients in a procmailrc.
Just dredge up your scheme/lisp programming skills. And you thought
they would never be useful...
Given the relative cost of CPU cycles and programmer time maintaining
system procmailrcs, is there a good reason that this isn't the default?
I'd like to suggest to Allman that it be dropped entirely. It just
doesn't make sense in the general case.
If he/you won't go for that, I'd suggest that it at least be moved to
PROCMAIL_FLAGS so it can be changed without editing mailer/procmail.
I agree that this would be a good thing. The too-clever-by-half
people (like me) can then add the 'm' back in.
Or, what am I missing? I'm just now adding local rules to invoke
procmail in mail filter mode, I don't have any practical experience
here.
The mailertable is usually the Right Place from which to invoke the
procmail mailer.
Philip Guenther