From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/74762 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Matthias Andree Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: That newfangled IMAP thing... Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 13:33:24 +0100 Message-ID: <4CFB8694.3050504@gmx.de> References: <87pqwt6lit.fsf@dod.no> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1291650604 7381 80.91.229.12 (6 Dec 2010 15:50:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 15:50:04 +0000 (UTC) To: ding@gnus.org Original-X-From: ding-owner+M23119@lists.math.uh.edu Mon Dec 06 16:50:00 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ding-account@gmane.org Original-Received: from util0.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.18]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PPdKC-0004cs-7C for ding-account@gmane.org; Mon, 06 Dec 2010 16:50:00 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu) by util0.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1PPdK7-0004hy-Ul; Mon, 06 Dec 2010 09:49:55 -0600 Original-Received: from mx2.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.33]) by util0.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1PPDnA-0003sK-5c for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Sun, 05 Dec 2010 06:34:12 -0600 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]) by mx2.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PPDmx-0000QC-1p for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Sun, 05 Dec 2010 06:34:12 -0600 Original-Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.22] helo=mail.gmx.net) by quimby.gnus.org with smtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1PPDmw-0006sr-00 for ; Sun, 05 Dec 2010 13:33:58 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 05 Dec 2010 12:33:26 -0000 Original-Received: from f055052123.adsl.alicedsl.de (EHLO baloo.cs.uni-paderborn.de) [78.55.52.123] by mail.gmx.net (mp042) with SMTP; 05 Dec 2010 13:33:26 +0100 X-Authenticated: #428038 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/uouMB7XfugkigXbfMVrtl3p1wis9RPw0ZkSP4mh ZEKTz4eTeRfYNj Original-Received: from [127.0.0.1] by baloo.cs.uni-paderborn.de with esmtp (Exim 4.70) (envelope-from ) id LCYG7O-0005OC-FZ for ding@gnus.org; Sun, 05 Dec 2010 13:33:24 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.6 In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Spam-Score: -0.4 (/) List-ID: Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:74762 Archived-At: Am 07.09.2010 16:52, schrieb Richard Riley: > Wes Hardaker writes: > >>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 13:20:27 +0200, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen said: >> >>>> Split incoming mail with procmail, or sieve, or the mail splitting tool >>>> of your choice, directly into the imap server's folders. >> >> LMI> Yuck. On the mail server? Do people set up procmail rules still, in >> LMI> this day and age? >> >> Procmail sucks (and needs to be rewritten). > > What sucks about procmail? It's used throughout the world and heartily > recommended by many. Certainly my (admittedly minor) use of it suggested > it was very competent, reliable and easy to use. Recommendations don't count, because you usually don't get scientific recommendations, people will stop their search on the first tool that does the job on initial testing and stick with it, without looking further if there's better stuff. Only later, long after they've sold their souls and mail, will they notice if something goes wrong. Procmail is anything, but not easy to use or reliable or maintained. It's been abandonware for nearly a decade. In .procmailrc, you need to write all the error handling yourself because procmail will happily try the next recipe if the previous failed to deliver. Thus, if you want to avoid mail ending up in the wrong box, you'd better be spamming the whole procmailrc with :0e { EXITCODE=75 HOST } after each and every delivering recipe. And I've seen procmail exit with non-/usr/include/sysexits.h error codes more often than I cared to count, and I've seen procmail-induced inadvertent non-delivery notices (aka. bounce mail) far more often than I care to remember. Compare that with maildrop that automatically defers mail on write errors, and has a rather intuitive syntax, here a snippet from my $HOME/.mailfilter # ... # check upstream's spam scanner status first if (/^X-Spam-Status: Yes/) to "Mail/spam1" xfilter "bogofilter -e -p -l" if (/^X-Bogosity: Spam, tests=bogofilter/) to "Mail/spam-bf" if (/^X-Bogosity: Unsure, tests=bogofilter/) cc "Mail/unsure" # LBDB support `/usr/bin/env lbdb-fetchaddr -d "%Y-%m-%d"` # ... Getting that right in procmail takes three screenfuls of text. -- Matthias Andree