Excellent to hear that the piping will make it out soon.
As to the feed-to-program-and-get-it-back-again possibility, (otherwise known as a filter?), well, that opens the door to doing some message modification. Who am I to argue against giving the user base such POWER? But for the sake of simpler scripts, that only have to worry about getting the letter via stdin, please don't drop the simple pipe to program option in favor of the more powerful one. Let's have them both, please, or, really, all THREE! And, uh, the future stuff I suggested last letter, please, keep them in mind-- or whatever better arrangement you guys might come up with!! Oh, well, I guess in the meantime, I can forward the certain letters to an alias that runs it thru a program, but the forwarding operation does tend to modify the letter contents and headers.... And, HMMMM, it just occurred to me, that another big complaint I had, that the big attachments I get by the hundreds keep building up and clogging up the disk, could be stripped by the filter you described, and replaced with a reference to where they have been saved to disk.... hey, I'm liking this filter more and more! murf On Sat, 2002-05-11 at 19:34, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: > On Sat, 2002-05-11 at 21:30, Steve Murphy wrote: ... snipped .... > > 1. a filter could have an action of executing a specified program, and > > passing the letter to it via stdin (pipe). > > I just hacked this 2 days ago... > > > > > 2. a filter could have an action of just executing a program. No pipe. > > If all you're going to do is ring a bell, why pass possibly a couple > > hundred K of data for nothing? > > this has been implemented for a while in the development release. But I > think having a way to pipe the message to an external process and > reading it back from the process might be useful? I dunno, it was > suggested that I do this next. > ... snipped .... > > murf > >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
