> 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/ ***
