Well, I had been thinking that only the filter 'action' would be able to pipe a message stream to a program and back again. For filter cirterion, having it just pipe it to an external program in order to get the return code of the program would be fine. We wouldn't want to change the message whilst trying to determine if we wanted to filter it :-)
But yea, for the 'actions' I had been planning on keeping the "exec program" without piping anything to it bit. Jeff On Sat, 2002-05-11 at 23:42, Steve Murphy wrote: > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
