| 1 |
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 21:40:01 +0200, Stroller wrote about [gentoo-user] |
| 2 |
Anything better than procmail?: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
>Hi David, |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>Your setup looks fairly similar to my own, but I am intrigued by the |
| 7 |
>differences. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Okay. I have been using all kinds of software for handling email, |
| 10 |
dating back to my OS/2 days in the early 1990's. I regard my current |
| 11 |
set-up as sweet. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
>On 12 Jun 2010, at 12:35, David W Noon wrote: |
| 14 |
>> ... Dovecot, but quickly replaced by dbmail. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
>Can I ask you why? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Certainly. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I wanted the messages to be stored in a single, dedicated logical volume |
| 21 |
in my DASD farm. Dovecot always stored them in each user's ~/Mail/ |
| 22 |
directory, so they were all over the /home L.V. In contrast, dbmail |
| 23 |
uses a database, in my case PostgreSQL, so it is up to the database |
| 24 |
administrator to decide where they go; but it is always in the one |
| 25 |
place. This makes for easy backup and restore: a cron jobs runs |
| 26 |
pg_dump every night on the dbmail database.. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
>I have found the author of Dovecot to be wonderfully responsive, |
| 29 |
>pushing out a fix for a deal-breaker issue for my site within hours |
| 30 |
>of me reporting it. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
>> This allows you to use a sieve script, instead of procmail "recipes". |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
>Can I ask you what the advantage of this is, please? |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
The recipe syntax for procmail is seriously ugly. Sieve looks like |
| 37 |
most other non-procedural languages from the early 1980's, although it |
| 38 |
arose in the 1990's. Since I am an old geezer who has been programming |
| 39 |
since the early 1970's, this syntax felt more comfortable. Sieve is |
| 40 |
also integrated into dbmail. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
>Looking at the example at |
| 43 |
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieve_(mail_filtering_language) |
| 44 |
> >, the language looks basically very similar to maildrop, and it |
| 45 |
>seems to do pretty much the same thing. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
I have never used maildrop. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
>The reject syntax seems nice and clear, but if the MX server (for |
| 50 |
>your email's domain name) has already accepted the message then it's |
| 51 |
>not really much good rejecting it. In fact, doing so is surely |
| 52 |
>frowned upon, isn't it? |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
I use a quarantine folder in my IMAP4 account, and my sieve script |
| 55 |
places spam and infected messages there. Since the physical location |
| 56 |
is on a logical volume that holds a PostgreSQL tablespace, any malware |
| 57 |
is not executable, as that L.V. is mounted with "noexec". This is |
| 58 |
another advantage over placing mail in the /home L.V., in each user's |
| 59 |
home directory. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
>> Moreover, each user maintains his/her own sieve script. |
| 62 |
> |
| 63 |
>As certainly would be the case with maildrop, and surely too with |
| 64 |
>procmail? |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
I don't know about maildrop, but procmail is usually managed centrally |
| 67 |
and hangs off the tail end of Postfix, Exim, Courier or whatever MTA you |
| 68 |
have. I always switched to root to maintain my delivery recipes, back |
| 69 |
when I ran procmail. |
| 70 |
-- |
| 71 |
Regards, |
| 72 |
|
| 73 |
Dave [RLU #314465] |
| 74 |
====================================================================== |
| 75 |
dwnoon@××××××××.com (David W Noon) |
| 76 |
====================================================================== |
Archives