On Friday, July 11, 2025 4:33:30 AM Mountain Standard Time Reuben Thomas wrote: > On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 at 00:35, Debian Bug Tracking System < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > Subject: maildrop's security model different from procmail's, problematic > > with esmtp > > I am going to close this bug report as it doesn’t appear that there are > > any > > changes that should be made in maildrop. > > It might be useful to document that maildrop cannot replace procmail in > this situation.
I think it would be important to document this behavior if users had reason to believe Maildrop would work in this situation. But, as far as I can tell, Maildrop never advertises that it could be used this way. Given that in the 18 years this bug report has been open, no other user besides yourself has commented on it with the expectation that this configuration should work, my guess is that either this is a use case that nobody else has ever tried or that the current documentation is sufficient for users to not expect that this would work. -- Soren Stoutner [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
