Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 18:30:27 -0600 (CST) From: Ted Hatfield <ted@io-tx.com> To: Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Sunpoet Po-Chuan Hsieh <sunpoet@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Procmail got updated! Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.20.1712181824220.10261@io-tx.com> In-Reply-To: <a3a1097d-22c7-89cc-dd69-b4ceeebf7228@gmx.de> References: <alpine.BSF.2.21.1712181012470.92288@aneurin.horsfall.org> <a3a1097d-22c7-89cc-dd69-b4ceeebf7228@gmx.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017, Matthias Andree wrote: > Am 18.12.2017 um 00:17 schrieb Dave Horsfall: >> Doing my regular update, and... >> >> Upgrading procmail from 3.22_9 to 3.22_10... >> >> Good grief; who's the masochist who volunteered to support this >> obscure insecure and hitherto-unsupported scripting language? >> > https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revision&revision=455800 > > I'd agree we should pull the plug on the package. We'll be in for the > usual "but it works for me" screaming of the irresponsible people who > don't care (and most of them won't know that they need to write the > exception/error handling themselves in their .procmailrc recipes). > > Sunpoet, can we mark the port as deprecated given that even the upstream > once said it should best be abolished? I can't find the reference now, > the procmail.org website displays "Site hosting in transit, information > will be back up shortly." > Dear Matthias, As one of the "irresponsible" people who is still using procmail on our systems and has built an number of scripts and customer infrastructure around it I take exception to the term irresponsible. Perhaps the better word is overworked. If I had the time to move to dovecot/sieve or maildrop as a local delivery agent I would have done so by now. Ted Hatfield
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.20.1712181824220.10261>