Re: [EXIM] dot-qmail director

Top Page
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Author: Piete Brooks
Date:  
To: Jason Gunthorpe
CC: exim-users
Subject: Re: [EXIM] dot-qmail director
> See the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG).

Ta.

> We would like to keep the same format and same feature set. QMail files
> are fairly feature rich in a simple way [ie they are not filter's]


OK -- they are well suited to your needs.

I don't understand your problem with "filters" ....

> To convert most qmail files to .forward files is possible, but you loose
> out on the unique aspects of qmail files


i.e. the simplistity ?

> - I would rather


.... what ? "use qmail files" ?

> I think proprietary is a poor word to have used.


OK ...

> But, I would like to see qmail support in exim because,
>   1) The exim format provides filtering, we are not interesting in
>      filtering.


It provided "selective processing".
Why are you not interested in this ? I'm missing something.

> 2) The qmail file is easy to parse correctly in all cases,


By humans or computers ?

>      no 'guessing' as with .forward files


Not sure to what "guessing" you are referring ..

>   3) The qmail file supports the extension mechanism as a standard feature,
>      ie jgg-blah@??? can be handled by it's own .qmail file


... whereas exim uses an "if" to put them all in one file.
This may not suit your requirements as well -- I accept that.

>   4) The qmail file sets a specific set of environs to make writing 
>      decision filter scripts in shell simple + fast.


I think I've heard requests for this on the exim list before -- maybe on PH10's
very long list :-))

> Exim's filter mechanism I would see as being totaly orthogonal to this and


No -- it is its implementation of this.

> more complex.


Agreed -- AKA "more powerful" ..
[ That's why I like it :-) ]

> That is, the exim filter mechism I see as being more a
> replacement for procmail - the qmail stuff adds features to the mailer
> that are not otherwise possible (#3 pretty much)


As in "own file" rather than "as a program block in the single file", yes.
But it can do the same job -- just expressed differently.

> Further more it is substantially more likely for other mailers to
> implement support for .qmail (and do it correctly) than it is for exim's
> filter mechanism to be supported.


Quite possibly.

But are there others yet ?

> I know exim can be made to support an extension mechanism similar to
> qmail files with it's .forwards, but again that is non-standard


... again, nor is qmail (yet) -- only sendmail is std.

> and doesn't exist in any other mailer.


AFAIK, no other mailers support qmail yet ...

>>> not to mention that post filtering one mailbox is not as effective as sender
> I am not talking about efficiancy, but said 'effectiveness'


OK -- so I can't read :-((

> that is filtering on the content of the message


AND the size of messages, AND the recipient, AND ....

> is much less effective than filtering based on destination email adderss.


Err -- is this the crux of the matter ?

Exim can filter on the destination email adderss ....

Am I missing something ??

> Please don't turn this into a flame war over which is better,


I'm not intending so to do.
I'm trying to discvover if there are deficiencies in what exim does.

> they are both good and can both co-exist happily,


I'd say that they each have their uses.
E.g. if you want a different message per recipient (making tracing of mail list
problems real easy) qmail is great, whereas if you want to send a single
message to multiple recipients as a single SMTP message, use exim.

I'm keen to know what the real differences are.

I get from you that qmail files are simpler and more convenient. Yes ?

> is there any reason exim cannot support both?


Do we really want exim to become the union of all mailers ?

Maybe if qmail supports exim's filtering ... :-)))

--
*** Exim information can be found at http://www.exim.org/ ***