On 10.11.17 05:50, Nate Bargmann wrote: > * On 2017 10 Nov 02:40 -0600, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > > Nate Bargmann writes: > > >I've also used Procmail for an > > >equal length of time and it is now claimed to be "unmaintained". > > > > Who claims that? > > Some months back I was looking for some tips on a recipe and seem to > recall comments to that effect.
In the event that the highly informative manpages (procmail, procmailex, procmailrc, procmailsc) don't explain significantly more than you need, then after trying some experimentation, the best place to look for procmail tips might be the procmail mailing list. It's not high traffic, as most people get the general hang of procmail, write some rules, then find it's not that hard. The LWN article seems overly negative. Procmail has served me superbly for a couple of decades, and is in no need of maintenance, AFAICT. > A quick check shows Wikipedia asserting the same: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procmail Hmmm ... curiously confused wording puts it in the past tense, but in the next sentence admits "remains in wide use as its capabilities are better than its alternatives." I hope to last another couple of decades, and expect procmail to see me out. Erik _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list [email protected] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
