Below is email from Stephen R. van den Berg, procmail's author.
He tried to send to this list and the dev list. Ironic that the
two procmail list addresses Stephen used are both no good. Well,
regardless of that, his message injects refreshing hopefulness for
all us procmailers. Good! Oh, and we *really* need to fix that list
address that appears in the output from running "procmail -v", which
hasn't worked in about three years!
I am taking the liberty of excising a couple of lines from the
forwarded message. Had Stephen succeeded at reaching the list,
I wouldn't have had this opportunity to be slightly coy about
a couple of sentences I'd had in my email to him which are now
gone from the public version. :-p
----- Forwarded message from "Stephen R. van den Berg" <srb(_at_)cuci(_dot_)nl>
-----
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 03:14:22 +0100
From: "Stephen R. van den Berg" <srb(_at_)cuci(_dot_)nl>
To: Dallman Ross <dman(_at_)[an address of dman's]>
Cc: procmail-users(_at_)procmail(_dot_)org, procmail-dev(_at_)procmail(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Future of procmail
Dallman Ross wrote:
I just called from where I am in Germany and spoke to your office
mate, who said you were on the phone and that he'd give you this email
address so you could look for my email.
I found it. I still have a procmail folder, it's just that I'm too busy
normally to actually check it out :-).
The really short story is that (a) Phillip Guenther isn't to be heard
from, for months and months now (years, actually), and there is a
Actually, I saw a mail from him in my procmail folder Cc'ing a response
to someone's questions on Oct 28th 2004.
But, I admit that I'm not current on the maintenance state of things.
growing chorus for something to be done about collecting, organizing,
and implementing into procmail's code the various bug fixes that are
out there floating around. (I have available to me, for example, a
private copy of code that has all known important bugs patched. I
am willing to work on getting that source put up at a website
[. . .] when I get the chance, but what is needed is some official
statement from the maintainer.
Well, if Phillip currently is too busy to take care of things, we should
arrange things to be taken care of (either by me, or other responsible
individuals).
(b) There is a growing rumble for something to be done with further
development if Phillip really is not going to respond at all to
anybody's email. (I wrote him six weeks ago, as an example, when
there were calls on the list for some action. I also tried calling
the IT dept. at the college where I think he works just now, but
I only got the voicemail of the lead guy there.)
:-). The whole point of putting someone else in charge of
maintenance/development besides myself was to ensure timely response.
It appears that, perhaps, Phillip is too busy to do it himself
these days.
(c) In light of the deafening silence and repeated inquiries that
are growing more impatient by the week, I am about to propose to the
list a steering or trustee committee. [Some details of my proposal
cut here.] [Such a committee, made up of . . . five or seven] active,
longer-term list participants [. . . would] ultimately help [. . .]
guide procmail's fate and development.
Sounds like a plan. But, given the apparent state of affairs, please
allow for me until this weekend to evaluate the situation at hand.
[One suggestion from an interested [. . . albeit] not-regular poster
to the list is that procmail become a sourceforge project. I haven't
yet decided how I feel about that, but I do know that the status quo
is no good.]
Well, no. Sourceforge is an excellent initiative, but this is not
the route to go, IMO. It would be a rather desparate last alternative,
which is not very likely (there are plenty of better alternatives
around).
(d) Also, the procmail.org domain is expiring tomorrow, 12 November
2004, fwiw. Is someone going to take care of renewing it? Btw, your
phone
That's taken care of.
number
on the whois listing isn't quite right, but I managed to find a phone
number via some Google tricks.
The phone number is quite right, actually, strange.
The address is not (anymore).
person: Stephen R van den Berg
address: Cubic Circle
address: Industriestraat 62
address: NL-6466 GD Kerkrade
phone: +31 4 55667766
fax-no: +31 4 55443333
e-mail: hostmaster(_at_)cuci(_dot_)nl
nic-hdl: SRB1-RIPE
Do not despair, the cavalry will come to the rescue.
--
Sincerely,
srb(_at_)cuci(_dot_)nl
Stephen R. van den Berg (AKA BuGless).
"ICMP: The protocol that goes PING!"
----- End forwarded message -----
Dallman's addendum: The part I edited above wasn't a big secret or
anything, it just was a bit more casually stated than I would have
preferred to state on-list. But there's really nothing hidden
other than a couple of unimportant thoughts of mine or turns of phrase.
Had Stephen succeeded in his attempt to send it all to the list I
wouldn't have been upset -- not to fear. :-)
Also, Stephen, your phone number *isn't* right on the whois listing;
that number quoted above is what I found via Google, but is not what
the whois listing says. Here's that:
Admin Name:Stephen R. R van den Berg
Admin Organization:
Admin Street1:Nieuw Eyckholt 290W
Admin Street2:
Admin Street3:
Admin City:Heerlen
Admin State/Province:
Admin Postal Code:6419 DJ
Admin Country:NL
Admin Phone:+1.31455667
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:+1.31455443333
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email:hostmaster(_at_)cuci(_dot_)nl
Note that the phone number pretends to be in the U.S. But even
behond that, dialing the Netherlands and then 455667 doesn't
work to reach you. :-)
I'm very relieved and very glad to have had this message.
Thank you, Stephen. Cavalry to the rescue, indeed!
Regards,
Dallman
____________________________________________________________
procmail mailing list Procmail homepage: http://www.procmail.org/
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail