From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1ONWwA-0004y3-FS for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 20:04:14 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8D2CAE0991 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 20:04:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtpout.karoo.kcom.com (smtpout.karoo.kcom.com [212.50.160.34]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 467AAE095D for ; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 19:32:48 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,408,1272841200"; d="scan'208";a="202214700" Received: from 213-152-39-90.dsl.eclipse.net.uk (HELO compaq.stroller.uk.eu.org) ([213.152.39.90]) by smtpout.karoo.kcom.com with ESMTP; 12 Jun 2010 20:32:47 +0100 Received: from funf.stroller.uk.eu.org (funf.stroller.uk.eu.org [192.168.1.71]) by compaq.stroller.uk.eu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0823C6C4C2 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 20:32:43 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: From: Stroller To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20100612123547.491fdec0@karnak.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Anything better than procmail? Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 20:32:45 +0100 References: <20100612123547.491fdec0@karnak.local> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936) X-Archives-Salt: e0db6c52-a703-4731-b2b0-ac92d5d87d6e X-Archives-Hash: 94faa035a461581bf990dddaf908582b Hi David, Your setup looks fairly similar to my own, but I am intrigued by the differences. On 12 Jun 2010, at 12:35, David W Noon wrote: > ... Dovecot, but quickly replaced by dbmail. Can I ask you why? I have found the author of Dovecot to be wonderfully responsive, pushing out a fix for a deal-breaker issue for my site within hours of me reporting it. > This allows you to use a sieve script, instead of procmail "recipes". Can I ask you what the advantage of this is, please? Looking at the example at , the language looks basically very similar to maildrop, and it seems to do pretty much the same thing. The reject syntax seems nice and clear, but if the MX server (for your email's domain name) has already accepted the message then it's not really much good rejecting it. In fact, doing so is surely frowned upon, isn't it? > Moreover, each user maintains his/her own sieve script. As certainly would be the case with maildrop, and surely too with procmail? Stroller.