From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Tue Dec 19 19:40:52 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85D76E9AF7E for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 19:40:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ted@io-tx.com) Received: from io-tx.com (io-tx.com [209.198.147.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.io-tx.com", Issuer "AlphaSSL CA - SHA256 - G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51F4C67CFF; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 19:40:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ted@io-tx.com) Received: from io-tx.com (io-tx.com [209.198.147.18]) (authenticated bits=0) by io-tx.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id vBJJejdo018778 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:40:46 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ted@io-tx.com) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:40:45 -0600 (CST) From: Ted Hatfield To: Matthias Andree cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Eugene Grosbein , Sunpoet Po-Chuan Hsieh Subject: Re: Procmail got updated! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (BSF 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at io-tx.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 on io-tx.com tests=ALL_TRUSTED, AWL, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 user=root X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on io-tx.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.25 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 19:40:52 -0000 On Tue, 19 Dec 2017, Matthias Andree wrote: > Am 19.12.2017 um 01:30 schrieb Ted Hatfield: >> >> >> On Mon, 18 Dec 2017, Matthias Andree wrote: >> >>> Am 18.12.2017 um 00:17 schrieb Dave Horsfall: >>>> Doing my regular update, and... >>>> >>>>     Upgrading procmail from 3.22_9 to 3.22_10... >>>> >>>> Good grief; who's the masochist who volunteered to support this >>>> obscure insecure and hitherto-unsupported scripting language? >>>> >>> https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revision&revision=455800 >>> >>> I'd agree we should pull the plug on the package. We'll be in for the >>> usual "but it works for me" screaming of the irresponsible people who >>> don't care (and most of them won't know that they need to write the >>> exception/error handling themselves in their .procmailrc recipes). >>> >>> Sunpoet, can we mark the port as deprecated given that even the upstream >>> once said it should best be abolished? I can't find the reference now, >>> the procmail.org website displays "Site hosting in transit, information >>> will be back up shortly." >>> >> >> Dear Matthias, >> >> As one of the "irresponsible" people who is still using procmail on >> our systems and has built an number of scripts and customer >> infrastructure around it I take exception to the term irresponsible.  >> Perhaps the better word is overworked.  If I had the time to move to >> dovecot/sieve or maildrop as a local delivery agent I would have done >> so by now. >> >> Ted Hatfield > > Dear Ted, Eugene, > > I think if the procmail language were a bit more "regular", someone > would have written converter scripts long ago by now. > > Other than that, I find it hard to believe that people don't have time > for over x in [3; 17] years to migrate, which in many cases would in my > book be more a situation of "I don't want to..." rather than "I am > unable to...". I don't mean to judge your situation, just that to me it > looks a matter that you have not yet found it important enough to bother. > > Given that the former maintainer asked OpenBSD to pull the plug on the > port already 37 months ago (see here > ) after > findings from fuzzing, and now to see security updates to a defunct > upstream port, I don't think we should keep the port around for much > longer. The expiration I was proposing isn't "axe it out now", we would > not normally do that, and it's at the maintainer's (i. e. sunpoet@'s) > discretion what expiration date, if any, will be set. > > But the question if we as downstream packagers/providers want to step in > for a package abolished by the upstream almost a generation ago, is one > that needs serious consideration. I wouldn't endorse that the project > waste time on decrepit ports for which decent alternatives exist. > > > Best, > Matthias > Matthias, My response wasn't meant to disprove your argument. There is a valid case behind dropping support for procmail and you are welcome to make that argument. >From my point of view (and I bet quite a few others) I've been using a software product provided by the port maintainers for quite a long time. During that time I've kept my software up to date and patched. As far as I am concerned I've done my due dilligence. If you want to make an argument against maintaining procmail I completely understand that. I just don't think that denigrating others while making your argument is the way to go about it. Ted Hatfield