Serge Knystautas wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stuart Roebuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > 1. I think there should be an option to specify which
> > process the mail is re-injected into - assuming "root"
> > is a bit presumptuous!
>
> I'm not sure what we gain by letting people specify their own name for the
> processor. Seems reasonable to require "root" and "error" to be "reserved
> words", if you will, for the conf file. Why should we let people vary this?
> How does that benefit them?
>
Stuart - did you mean the processor (out of root, transport, spam, error
etc )into which the mail was re-injected?
If so, that should be just a question of setting the appropriate state
in the Mail.
By the way, did you have a go at writing a re-injector or was it just an
idea?
Charles
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives: <http://www.mail-archive.com/james%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
