Talk:Procmail

Untitled
The German page has quite a bit more content, you might want to consult that if you want to expand on this stub.

Eeera 05:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Actively maintained?
Mention if procmail is being actively maintained still. Jidanni 15:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am very curious about this particular point, because I've recently found and fixed a bug in it, but so far no reply from the maintainer, and the last version was released in 2001. User:Glenn Willen (Talk) 03:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's mothballed as far as I know. Orpheus (talk) 07:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that this is a moot issue for many of us: for example the Debian project supports it as part of Debian Linux, and fixes bugs when necessary. Any other organization which bundles it must do the same. JöG (talk) 09:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've updated the status to say, "Finished". It works great, and "mothballed" suggests that it's dead or somehow doesn't work, which isn't true. 2604:5500:4:0:51C9:9231:7FA7:D633 (talk) 05:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Removed book link
To the best of my knowledge (and that includes recent correspondence with Christopher Lindsey) this book was never published, so I removed it from the "Further reading" section.-- era (Talk | History) 10:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Procmail, Chris Lindsey, S. 325, April 2001, ISBN 1-56592-540-8

fdm
I tried adding fdm (https://github.com/nicm/fdm) as viable procmail alternative but the edit was reverted without any explanation.

Minusf (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

"and a number of security vulnerabilities have been discovered since its last release."
The article sourced for this claim negligently agrees with this it, but the CVEs that article cites do not! CVE-2002-2034 was a vulnerability in a popular (?) procmail script, not in procmail itself. CVE-2006-5449 was an issue with a 3rd party program which, among other things, was supposed to write helpful procmail scripts but happened to write vulnerable ones. You'll notice those descriptions are past tense. This is because, in addition to these vulnerabilities being in things other than procmail, they were fixed a long time ago. 2601:1C2:5200:AC70:AC12:534D:E958:421C (talk) 07:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)