procmail
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: setting shellmetas

2002-08-08 15:49:43
On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Hanspeter Roth wrote:

  On Aug 08 at 10:17, David W. Tamkin spoke:

[...]
By temporarily unsetting SHELLMETAS, we tell procmail that there's no
character in a command string that it can't handle on its own, and it
shouldn't even scan the command string to look for any.  By restoring the
value of $SHELLMETAS when we're done, procmail is then able to call a shell
farther along in the rcfile if it needs to.

Thank you for your explanation.

Then the cycles are wasted for procmail to scan for the characters and
possibly to fork an extra shell process that wasn't needed.

Thus as long as I quote properly is it an issue of performance?

        Yes, but not only performance - The shell looking for the global
        and user's startup files and run if needed; set the environment;
        set agine the stdio files, check if you need prompt (!?!?) and so on
        Even if you have a big and strong machine which works on few messages
        it still  "looks ... not right"  (:-)
        However, your server must be _busy_ to note the difference.

It some times happens to me that I pipe twice into sed:
| sed 'session1' | sed 'session2'

        You can use "-e" flag:

sed -e 'session1' -e 'session2'

        Or write the sed commands in file and call the file by "-f":

sed -f somesedcommands.sed

        The "|" will force procmail to call the shell.

(My experience with sed is limited.)
Should I set SHELL to light version of shell (/bin/ash or /bin/sh)
rather than something like bash?

        I think that the gap is not so big.  In some operating systems
        bash(1) and sh(1) are symbolic linked to the same one binary
        file.  Anyway, sh(1) is very generic, standard (vanilla).
        The "c  family" like tcsh or csh are built for interactive session
        and not recommended for batch mode or integration with other programs.
        Take a rest and read the article with the name "Why Not Csh?" (:-)
        or "Csh Programming Considered Harmful".  Tom Christiansen covers
        the csh(1) problems against sh(1) benefits (include bash, kash).

                http://www.perl.com/pub/a/language/versus/csh.html

Bye,
 Udi

_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>