Circa 2001-Aug-20 18:19:39 +0530 dixit Suresh Ramasubramanian:
: +++ Sheldon Hearn [exim-users] <20/08/01 14:23 +0200>:
: > 1) I don't like it when automagical things happen when an arbitrarily
: > named file exists.
:
: Well, on linux so far (a very recent freebsd convert - and I like
: it). On most linuxen (or all of them) procmail support out of the
: box is taken as a "given" thing.
:
: > 2) This change would make the FreeBSD ports for Exim depend on procmail.
: > Lots of people neither want nor need procmail.
:
: Those that want can easily set up a .forward - but linux converts to
: freebsd sometimes do miss it :)
Sheldon, is there a reason not to arrange for exim to support procmail
in commented-out portions of exim.conf?
It's easy enough to setup a transport that supports procmail. For
example:
procmail_pipe:
driver = pipe
command = "/usr/bin/procmail -d ${local_part}"
delivery_date_add = true
envelope_to_add = true
freeze_exec_fail = false
group = mail
log_defer_output = false
log_fail_output = false
log_output = false
return_fail_output = false
return_output = false
return_path_add = true
umask = 0022
And then add a commented-out line to the localuser director:
localuser:
driver = localuser
transport = local_delivery
# transport = procmail_pipe
perhaps with a note explaining that procmail is needed in order to use
the procmail_pipe transport.
Then folks who use the FreeBSD port could choose whether to use
procmail for delivery or not, without having to set up .forward files
or explain to users how to set them up.
--
jim knoble | jmknoble@??? |
http://www.pobox.com/~jmknoble/
(GnuPG fingerprint: 31C4:8AAC:F24E:A70C:4000::BBF4:289F:EAA8:1381:1491)
