On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 07:45:22PM -0500, Paul Iadonisi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As Paul L. mentions in a later message, there's no problem with this
> as a corporate policy. There are many arguments for sealed servers, but
> I believe that it's beyond the scope of the points I'ld to make. (I'm
> happy to discuss it, but I just think it's a different, though related,
> discussion.)
> I'm not really 'blaming' procmail, anyhow. It does what it does well.
> Problem is, that it's not designed for filtering using only IMAP. I
> personally cringe at alternating my access of an INBOX between IMAP and
> procmail or any other non-IMAP access. Leaving Cyrus out the picture for
> the moment, let's take a look at UW-IMAP. Upon accessing a folder, it puts
> a dummy message in the front of the file with some folder information. It
> looks pretty innocuous and I doubt it would ever be a problem deleting it
> and letting UW-IMAP recreate it, but I just don't trust letting non-techie
> users do stuff to IMAP folders unless it's through IMAP only. It's
> comparable (though not as bad as) to modifying an rcs file by hand.
What is your objection to an alternative interface to the procmail
rules? Here at work we have a web-based interface to edit procmail
rules. I can't find a URL for that interface, but I found a similar
project at http://www.uvm.edu/opensource/?Page=procbuilder.html. This
should allow you to edit your procmail rules without having shell access
to the server.
Additionally, I have to question how effective your method of
filtering would really be. Initially, it sounded great, but then I had
the consider the likelihood that it would actually deny spam. I don't
know how many messages that I've received actually use the same return
address, but I would hazard a guess that very few do. Without some sort
of pattern to the return address (or "MAIL FROM:"), I would think that
my inbox would simply be cluttered with messages from the mail server
about rejecting/accepting a message/sender instead of the actual spam,
which would like actually consume *more* of my time to process.
> If an employee really want to reject all mail from the CEO, he can do
> that himself, later.
Hmm, which makes me wonder about "I never got that email" excuses in
such a setup...
--
Bob Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We have to make a management decision."
-- Jerry Mason, Morton Thiokol Inc., before launching the "Challenger"
*****************************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body.
*****************************************************************
