Scott D. Yelich writes:
> Sorry, my statement was poorly phrased.
>
> ``Please give me a reference in the rblsmtpd package where the use of
> more than one RBL lookup is used.''
Why do you believe that there has to be an explicit documentation of this
situation? This is merely a specific application of rblsmtpd, all that the
documentation of any app should do, as a bare minimum, is to describe how
to run it, what its arguments are, and what it does. It would certainly be
nice to also have it describe to accomplish all sorts of weird results, but
that is certainly not a mandated requirement.
> I asked another poster on this list to give me an example of where else
> in UNIX a program calls itself as a standard practice. He couldn't come
> up with one. He provided a *working* example, but just because my car
It's called a "pipe", and it happens quite often, in a UNIX environment.
The first situation that comes to mind is a sophisticated grep that simply
won't cut it by running it once. As a rough example, consider grepping for
E-mail messages that pass through a badly misconfigured Sendmail 8.6 relay,
unless the header includes something that looks like an IP address:
grep 'SMI-8.6' * | egrep -v '[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\.[0-9]+'
Not a perfect algorythm, but will do the job fine, in 99% of the cases, and
it makes no sense to waste a few hours to get it 100% right, if it's just a
one-time deal.
> er, close. It wasn't the fact that I didn't know it could do that -- I
> didn't realize that was how it was supposed to be done! I'm not going to
> argue over multiple -rs or multiple instances now that I know it's
> supposed to be multiple instances. I'll just wait for the next poor sap
> that runs across this and I'll post ``I told you sos'' ...
Actually, since whenever rblsmtpd was released, you're the first person to
get confused by it to such a degree as to initiate a long-running rant on
the subject. A few others asked how it can be done, and were more than
happy with the answer, which is no different than what happens with any
issue regarding any program.
> > I was almost afraid to ask what in blazes you are talking about, but I
> > think that I've finally figure it out.
> >
> > What you are referring to as a 'dependency' is a separate package, but the
> > patch itself can be easily adapted to use any filtering engine, even
> > procmail, instead. In fact, I used to include instructions on using
> > procmail as an alternative, at some point in the fact. However, I felt
> > that procmail is rather broken in that regard, and was giving people a
> > nasty
> > headache.
>
> Right... but procmail gets bad-mouthed. maildrop is the prescribed
> medicine... but we all know that one doesn't need c++ to get qmail-uce
> going. nope.
Correct. As long as you comply with the interface, you can plug in a
filtering engine written in Perl, for all I care.
--
Sam
