On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 08:57:56PM -0500, Carlos Paz wrote: > Gordon Messmer wrote: > > [ ... ] > > Many useful, fail-safe maildrop recipes are bloated with expensive forks > for file test operations, but who cares! maildrop itself is not ... > > should we go back to writing machine code? anything else is starting to > seem bloatware ... > > File check operations are very useful and I fail to see the excessive > complexity added to the language parser/global code to support them. > > If this features were added under an optional build flag, I'd bet that > almost everyone would enable it on installation. > > my 2 cents.
Well, I respect the wide range of opinions about this suggestion that have been expressed here. It seems to me that there's enough interest in my proposal that I will now start writing a maildrop patch as our discussions continue. I can always stop work on it. I'll leave out unlink/rename/rmdir, as these are more controversial. Also, I agree with the person who pointed out that these occur a lot less frequently under normal maildrop usage, and therefore an occasional fork of a shell for them does not cause much of a problem. I agree about an optional build flag, and I'll incorporate that into my patch (does anyone here understand the details of autoconf and want to give me some help with it when the time comes? ... if so, contact me via private email). -- Courier User [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ courier-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users
