Re: [exim] OT: Extracting information from an email

Hi Peter

On Fri, 2008-05-09 at 09:05 +0100, Peter Bowyer wrote:
> On 08/05/2008, Steve Dobson <steve@???> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-05-08 at 14:40 +0100, Peter Bowyer wrote:
> > > Rather than answer your question, can I suggest an alternative
> > > approach - how about Amazon SQS? It's a reliable message-queue service
> > > 'in the sky' designed for exactly the sort of thing you're describing,
> > > with a web services API and toolkits in various languages. Other
> > > services are probably available.
> > >
> > > Just a thought...
>
> > I didn't want to put all that in the original posting as this is an OT
> > thread.
>
> Fair enough, but the probability of getting a suggestion that won't
> work or that you've already discounted increases with the amount of
> information you don't disclose.... one of the benefits of asking a
> question with full disclosure is that you might just hear a few things
> you hadn't thought of.... but hey, it's your call.

Oh I agree. I took a look at Amazon SQS as I wasn't aware of it. I'm
glad you told me about it even though I can't use it this time. One
never knows for the future.

I am not so arrogant to think that my reasoning could be in error.
There maybe some really nice technology out there of which I am unaware
which will solve all my problems, if so I welcome the information.
With the information I originally gave Amazon SQS was a good and valid
solution, and I do appreciate it.

> > Any chance you could point me to the documentation now?
>
> A bit harsh, surely?

I'm surprised you think so. If I offended my apologies.

But you said above "[r]ather than answer your question", which I took to
mean that you could have answered but you choose not to. If you are now
withholding that information I find that "[a] bit harsh".

Steve
--
Steve Dobson

The best way to accelerate a Macintoy is at 9.8 meters per second per
second.