Re: mutt vacation-list issue



jd typed (on Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 04:43:33PM -0700):
|
|
| On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, brian@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
|
| >Quoting jd <jd@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
| >
| >>
| >>
| >>On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Jean-Pierre Radley wrote:
| >>
| >>>jd typed (on Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 11:09:06AM -0700):
| >>>|
| >>>|
| >>>| On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Jean-Pierre Radley wrote:
| >>>|
| >>>| >
| >>>| >Ditch the version of deliver.vacation I sent in my last message.
| >>>|
| >>>| Why not ditch the whole thing and use procmail. There are vacation
| >>>| receipes available on the web. Why re-invent the wheel?
| >>>
| >>>Why should I use 'procmail' when 'deliver' (with its own vacation
| >>>template script) works perfectly well, and existed years before the
| >>>wheel known as 'procmail' was (re-)invented?
| >>
| >>Because there are procmail recipes that do EXACTLY what you are trying to
| >>do and are available to anyone who can use Google? For example:
| >>
| >http://www.clarkconnect.com/wiki/index.php?title=Howtos_-_Procmail_Vacation_Auto-Reply_Recipe
| >>
| >>This one allows a system-wide procmail recipe, which sends auto-replies
| >>only if the user creates a certain file in his/her home directory. The
| >>text of the message is taken from that file. It also has extra capability
| >>to avoid mail loop problems.
| >
| >Did you buy a new car when you ashtrays filled up?
|
| OK, I'm totally puzzled. Why spend time trying to hack a script that does
| not work properly (that's what the original post stated) when there are
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
JD,

I believe the original script I posted was authored by
Jean-Pierre Radley [JP]. Even if not, the script had a
problem and JP fixed it, and he did so rather quickly.
I still have issues with UUCP, but the vacation-reply
portion works like a charm. Its aways nice to know of
alternative ways to fix any problem, but its also hard
to beat some of the fixes given in this forum. There's
a lot of brain power lurking here. I guess I lean toward
the way Brian is thinking in his reply.

In any case, please continue to add your feedback. All input
is appreciated.

- Jeff Hyman

| working solutions already available?
|
| Apparently, to some people, there is some value in using crufty old tools,
| when there are better solutions available, but I just don't see it. I do
| subscribe to the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" philosophy, but in this
| case, the starting point was broken and in need of fixing. The quickest
| solution would likely have been the installation of procmail.
|
| So, let me ask you: if it costs more to fix your car than to buy an
| equivalent new car, do you fix your old one? This is not like caring for
| a classic car, this is about providing a service to your clients in the
| most efficient manner, or don't you care about this?
|
| Another thought for you: Usenet provides a resource for many people, don't
| you think that if someone had no existing vacation solution and wanted to
| install something that discussing alternatives has value?
|
| But finally: I really don't see why the suggestion of a WORKING technical
| alternative should be met with an ad-hominem attack.

.