On Thursday 01 April 2004 02:03 am, Charles Sprickman wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Apr 2004, Jeremy Kitchen wrote:
> > I simply wrote a patch to make it work. I'm not a maintainer of the
> > package, if they want to modify it to make it work along side with the
> > existing stuff, go right ahead. We are no
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004, Jeremy Kitchen wrote:
> I simply wrote a patch to make it work. I'm not a maintainer of the
> package, if they want to modify it to make it work along side with the
> existing stuff, go right ahead. We are not using the older
> --enable-spam-command stuff with our customers,
On Wed, 2004-03-31 at 20:09, Charles Sprickman wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2004, Jeremy Kitchen wrote:
>
>
> > > I suggest the goal should be to let vpopmail do the work and make
> > > qmailadmin as much as possible just a web interface to the vpopmail library.
> >
> > yea, but there's that old spam
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004, Jeremy Kitchen wrote:
> > I suggest the goal should be to let vpopmail do the work and make
> > qmailadmin as much as possible just a web interface to the vpopmail library.
>
> yea, but there's that old spam command stuff which is interfering with
> the changes I'm making.
W
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004, Jeremy Kitchen wrote:
> My question is: qmailadmin already has some spamassassin support, and
> I'm trying to modify qmailadmin to support the new spamassassin stuff,
> so is it ok to remove the old stuff and put the new stuff in?
As someone who uses the old scheme, I'd say t
On Fri, 2004-03-19 at 14:23, Andrea Riela wrote:
> thanks for your work :)
no problem :)
> I think if you could create a web page, where change our spamassassin config
> (like required_hits, or if you use dcc, pyzor, or razor, etc) only if we
> check the "enable_spam_command" box, that would be n
hi Jeremy,
thanks for your work :)
I think if you could create a web page, where change our spamassassin config
(like required_hits, or if you use dcc, pyzor, or razor, etc) only if we
check the "enable_spam_command" box, that would be nice :)
qmailadmin is a good tool for vpopmail, but will be b
On Thu, 2004-03-18 at 11:20, Rick Widmer wrote:
> Jeremy Kitchen wrote:
>
> > I see that it is in the plans for vpopmail to merge in the new
> > spamassassin features that Ken has written support for, which is great!
> > My question is: qmailadmin already has some spamassassin support, and
> > I'
Jeremy Kitchen wrote:
I see that it is in the plans for vpopmail to merge in the new
spamassassin features that Ken has written support for, which is great!
My question is: qmailadmin already has some spamassassin support, and
I'm trying to modify qmailadmin to support the new spamassassin stuf
