On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:52:10 -0500
Phil Barnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 30 November 2003 5:05 pm, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> Also, for admins who just can't use IMAP, we'd need to provide
>> /some/ web interface for them to deal with things.
> Why not just integrate with IMP? Does wha
On Sunday 30 November 2003 5:05 pm, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Also, for admins who just can't use IMAP,
> we'd need to provide /some/ web interface for them to deal with things.
Why not just integrate with IMP? Does what you want, requires no further
coding.
--
"The true measure of a man is how
On Thu, 2003-11-27 at 13:34, Jeff Warnica wrote:
> Unless I wanted to hack up that subsystem so that the choices a
> moderator had were based on how the message got there, I guess its just
> a matter of having another canned error message. Its not much of a
> difference either way as far as code g
On Thu, 2003-11-27 at 11:42, J C Lawrence wrote:
> First thought:
>
> Discard message on
> Hold message on
> Accept message on
>
> Where the regex fields are in fact lists of regexes. Given such support
> it is fairly simple to define regexes which match SpamAssassin headers
> of value
Im not what you could consiter a power user as far as Mailman is
concerned, but it is my understanding that there is more then one way
for messages to get into the 'admindb' (if thats what the
to-be-moderated queue is called). Being flaged as spam would be another
way to enter that queue. How it g
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:46:27 -0500
Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-11-27 at 03:47, PieterB wrote:
> For the next version of Mailman, I'd prefer to see something more
> generic if possible.
+1
> That way a site could add SA, SB[1], or some other system. It may be
> too
Alle 16:46, giovedì 27 novembre 2003, Barry Warsaw ha scritto:
> For the next version of Mailman, I'd prefer to see something more
> generic if possible. That way a site could add SA, SB[1], or some other
> system. It may be too hard to do this since there are no standards
> here, but even then,
On Thu, 2003-11-27 at 03:47, PieterB wrote:
> It would be great if the MM 2.1.4 distribution will contain the
> files needed for spamassassin integration.
We can't really add this to 2.1 because it would be a new feature.
> I'm willing to help you with the SA-integration. I didn't hear
> Barry
On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 04:33:45PM -0400, Jeff Warnica wrote:
> First: If I was to submit a (compleate) set of patches that allow at
> least some per list configuration for SpamAssassin integration, would
> they be accepted?
I hope those patches will be accepted! Also see my patch mentioned
in ht
I have a couple of questions.
First: If I was to submit a (compleate) set of patches that allow at
least some per list configuration for SpamAssassin integration, would
they be accepted?
As a first attempt I would be just concerned with setting the score, and
actions to take. Likely it would be
10 matches
Mail list logo
