Re: procmail (was Re: Spam messages bypassing SA)

2014-10-28 Thread Derek Diget
On Oct 28, 2014 at 07:40 -0400, David F. Skoll wrote: =>On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 23:50:20 -0700 =>Ian Zimmerman wrote: => =>> Or you could run dovecot and its sieve plugin. Sieve is a real =>> standard (RFC 5228) which procmail never was. => =>It may be a standard, but it's nowhere near as flexible a

Re: procmail (was Re: Spam messages bypassing SA)

2014-10-28 Thread David F. Skoll
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 23:50:20 -0700 Ian Zimmerman wrote: > Or you could run dovecot and its sieve plugin. Sieve is a real > standard (RFC 5228) which procmail never was. It may be a standard, but it's nowhere near as flexible as Perl. I have very unusual filtering requirements (for example, rule

Re: procmail (was Re: Spam messages bypassing SA)

2014-10-28 Thread Ian Zimmerman
On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 08:43:41 -0400, "David F. Skoll" wrote: David> Procmail is also unmaintained abandonware, as far as I can tell. David> If you use SpamAssassin, you probably like Perl, so I would David> recommend Email::Filter instead. It's far more flexible than David> procmail and lets you

Re: procmail (was Re: Spam messages bypassing SA)

2014-10-27 Thread Robert Schetterer
Am 27.10.2014 um 21:04 schrieb Daniel Staal: > --As of October 27, 2014 8:29:52 PM +0100, Robert Schetterer is alleged > to have said: > >> by the way >> >> http://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/34896/ >> >> always have a shellshock patched system these days with postfix/procmail > > --As for the re

Re: procmail (was Re: Spam messages bypassing SA)

2014-10-27 Thread Daniel Staal
--As of October 27, 2014 8:29:52 PM +0100, Robert Schetterer is alleged to have said: by the way http://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/34896/ always have a shellshock patched system these days with postfix/procmail --As for the rest, it is mine. Interesting. I dug a bit further out of curios

Re: procmail (was Re: Spam messages bypassing SA)

2014-10-27 Thread Robert Schetterer
Am 27.10.2014 um 19:55 schrieb Bob Proulx: > David F. Skoll wrote: >> "Kevin A. McGrail" wrote: >>> Procmail has some weird syntax >> >> Procmail is also unmaintained abandonware, as far as I can tell. > > That isn't really a fair assessment of procmail. It is like saying > that 'cp' is unmaintai

Re: procmail (was Re: Spam messages bypassing SA)

2014-10-27 Thread Bob Proulx
David F. Skoll wrote: > "Kevin A. McGrail" wrote: > > Procmail has some weird syntax > > Procmail is also unmaintained abandonware, as far as I can tell. That isn't really a fair assessment of procmail. It is like saying that 'cp' is unmaintained abandonware. The original authors no longer main

Re: procmail (was Re: Spam messages bypassing SA)

2014-10-24 Thread Kevin A. McGrail
On 10/24/2014 8:43 AM, David F. Skoll wrote: ...I would recommend Email::Filter instead. Definitely will try it out! Thanks.

procmail (was Re: Spam messages bypassing SA)

2014-10-24 Thread David F. Skoll
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 18:00:29 -0400 "Kevin A. McGrail" wrote: > Procmail has some weird syntax Procmail is also unmaintained abandonware, as far as I can tell. If you use SpamAssassin, you probably like Perl, so I would recommend Email::Filter instead. It's far more flexible than procmail and le