Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 10:42:26 -0600 (CST) From: Ted Hatfield <ted@io-tx.com> To: Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de> Cc: Kevin Oberman <rkoberman@gmail.com>, Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net>, FreeBSD Ports ML <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Procmail got updated! Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.20.1712231032270.60984@io-tx.com> In-Reply-To: <1f5623f9-0ed1-3fb7-d81a-efd2f08ae3c8@gmx.de> References: <alpine.BSF.2.21.1712181012470.92288@aneurin.horsfall.org> <a3a1097d-22c7-89cc-dd69-b4ceeebf7228@gmx.de> <alpine.BSF.2.20.1712181824220.10261@io-tx.com> <f68594db-396b-0821-e90d-3f089781e8fd@gmx.de> <5A39F7C9.1030800@grosbein.net> <05504d3c-3225-e83f-8f10-225319421a35@gmx.de> <B51F1354-44C9-4936-A78B-84F34A4516B5@adamw.org> <f02e8c58-4fc5-6fd9-ed06-02e3077e67e8@gmx.de> <5A3B7BFF.2020202@grosbein.net> <845b162a-918d-4a5f-c3c2-4f58b60bff73@gmx.de> <5A3CA1B5.2090907@grosbein.net> <a24e3a36-7c23-47a1-acfc-74d76a9d2e5f@gmx.de> <CAN6yY1uvdK4NvzgG8w5KTgiGEG4D3d6GLmo-yXdZpBAeXCi0Yw@mail.gmail.com> <1f5623f9-0ed1-3fb7-d81a-efd2f08ae3c8@gmx.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 23 Dec 2017, Matthias Andree wrote: > Am 23.12.2017 um 08:12 schrieb Kevin Oberman: >> >> So, why does Eugene's question have no relevance to the procmail >> case? Could you please explain? > > Because I am not willing to discuss generics when we have a specific > case of port at hand. > The attempted generalization distracts from that, and I insinuate that > distraction is the purpose. > Everyone is free to start a new thread about general port maintenance > and removal principles. > I think the best reason to keep procmail available in ports is that there are still quite a number of people still using it. In fact opensource.com has an article dated 11/01/2017 titled: SpamAssassin, MIMEDefang, and Procmail: Best Trio of 2017 https://opensource.com/article/17/11/spamassassin-mimedefang-and-procmail Not necessarily an argument for code safety but a good argument that it's still being used by quite a number of people. I think that as long as someone is willing to patch the software when vulnerabilities come up we should keep the port available. Ted Hatfield
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.20.1712231032270.60984>