Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 10:45:20 -0700 From: Chris <portmaster@bsdforge.com> To: "Julian H. Stacey" <jhs@berklix.com> Cc: Dave Horsfall <dave@horsfall.org>, FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Is there a way to subscribe to the commit messages for only ports you maintain? Message-ID: <02a8a6ba850014420c23b7710ef61726@bsdforge.com> In-Reply-To: <202105181627.14IGR9WU059588@fire.js.berklix.net> References: <202105181627.14IGR9WU059588@fire.js.berklix.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2021-05-18 09:27, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > Dave Horsfall wrote: >> On Tue, 18 May 2021, Julian H. Stacey wrote: >> >> > I'd use /usr/ports/mail/procmail >> >> I wouldn't; it's an unsupported and obscure scripting language just asking >> for bugs, and actually has several CVEs against it. > > URLs please ? > None on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procmail > just some obscure FUD > "a number of security vulnerabilities have been discovered > since its last release" > But no URLs to CVEs. BTW It also says: > "last maintainer, Philip Guenther,[4] to use an alternative > tool, because procmail is not suited for MIME traffic." > Yet procmail works with MIME for me. > Maybe Procmail V. other is like debates on Emacs V. Vi, Sendmail V. Postfix > ? > > Procmail is mature software, just works, so people don't keep hacking it; > That's a luxury, stable working tools that don't change: > > I constantly loose time tracking the latest FreeBSD at cost of > working round loss of code in src/ & ports/. (Occasionaly src/ > is even butchered at short order before code might arrive in > ports/ after complaint). > > src/ losses inc. (partial list from mem.): eg timed groff amd etc. > ports/ losses (partial) eg www/chimera print/ghostview mail/openwebmail > https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/ports.cgi?query=openwebmail&stype=all > > I have own hacks to chimera & ghostview etc eg > http://berklix.com/~jhs/src/bsd/fixes/freebsd/ports/gen/www/chimera > http://berklix.com/~jhs/src/bsd/fixes/freebsd/ports/gen/print/ghostview > But its a bother to maintain when constantly working code is under threat, > just cos its old & boring = works & not hacked ;-). > >> Better filters exist, such as "sieve" etc. > > Maybe ? I looked: Doesn't seem apparent, Seems Sieve is something Different > ! > & which components used how are better, given the example to solve ? > https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/ports.cgi?query=sieve&stype=all&sektion=all > Sieve doesn't seem a direct competitor for procmail ? > https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/ports.cgi?query=procmail > https://cgit.freebsd.org/ports/tree/mail/procmail > Sieve seems a plug in for some specific mail & coms protocol tools, > far as I've read ? Not a stand alone local NMH tool ? > > There may well be better than procmail, but I havent seen or needed yet. > Procmail has worked fine for me for 23+ years, all mistakes mine, > none procmail's that I recall; I have not yet explored all the > procmail functionality; & I couldn't happily loose time to re-write my 28 K > line (after comments & spam phrases stripped) 20 file procmail rule set. > > A larger syntax sample inc. freebsd list filters > http://berklix.com/~jhs/dots/.procmailrc_lists I hear you, Julian. Many (most?) people consider Sendmail a (dead?) dinosaur because they (don't|care to) understand m4(1). But I've got a couple of decades of hacks into it. That proves to me the possibilities are endless. In fact, the logging hacks have netted me a 1/4 billion IPv4 addresses. Over 99% of them are UNMAINTAINED. Proving the hype over IPv4 exhaustion is pure BS. I track them, they remain unmaintained, and OUT of my mail queues. :-) Thanks for taking the time to share your (wisdom) and hacks, Julian! :-) --Chris > > Cheers,
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?02a8a6ba850014420c23b7710ef61726>