Here's my first own plugin. I'd be grateful for any hints on the
coding style etc.
What it does: It will only accept messages with an envelope sender of
<> if the recipient is listed in the acceptbounce config file (or
if that file doesn't exist, to protect from configuration errors
etc
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:14:51PM +0100, Johan Almqvist wrote:
>Here's my first own plugin. I'd be grateful for any hints on the
>coding style etc.
>
>What it does: It will only accept messages with an envelope sender of
><> if the recipient is listed in the acceptbounce config file (or
>i
Hi
On Jan 18, 2006, at 22:49, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:14:51PM +0100, Johan Almqvist wrote:
Here's my first own plugin. I'd be grateful for any hints on the
coding style etc.
I like this idea but it would be more useful for me if this took
regexes
rather than ex
Johan Almqvist wrote:
[...]
I'll think about it once more, I think I should probably turn the logic
around both in check_badrcptto_patterns and in my plugin, so that
check_badrcptto_patterns becomes check_goodrcptto_patterns (a list of
patterns that describes all legit addresses)
I built
On Jan 23, 2006, at 10:48, Gordon Rowell wrote:
check_goodrcptto extn -
I don't have this, it wasn't in the distro. There should be a central
place for plugins, maybe a Wiki.
After looking at this, what I really aim at is forbidding bounces to
the extn'ded addresses, (because in my setup
Johan Almqvist wrote:
On Jan 23, 2006, at 10:48, Gordon Rowell wrote:
check_goodrcptto extn -
I don't have this, it wasn't in the distro.
I'll submit it on Gavin Carr's behalf unless he's listening. Gavin?
I also provided a link to the plugin set we use in the SME Server a
little while
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 09:05:13PM +1100, Gordon Rowell wrote:
> Johan Almqvist wrote:
> >
> >On Jan 23, 2006, at 10:48, Gordon Rowell wrote:
> >
> >>check_goodrcptto extn -
> >
> >
> >I don't have this, it wasn't in the distro.
>
> I'll submit it on Gavin Carr's behalf unless he's listening. Gav
Gavin Carr wrote:
[...]
Listening, just busy. :-) My plugins are here:
http://www.openfusion.com.au/labs/qpsmtpd/
I'm happy for any of them to be included in the distro, but last I
heard we hadn't finalised a mechanism for that. Or have we?
This worked for me:
- Send to bugs
- A maintai
On Jan 24, 2006, at 22:08, Gordon Rowell wrote:
I'm happy for any of them to be included in the distro, but last I
heard we hadn't finalised a mechanism for that. Or have we?
This worked for me:
- Send to bugs
- A maintainer (John in my case) makes some valid suggestions for
improvements
-
Does stuff like this actually work? My submissions would just sit there
without even getting a thumbs up/down vote, review or even a cursory retort
of how everything I've done stupid and could have been done better by a
monkey tripping on LSD.
Maybe things are different now?
On 1/24/06 3:08 PM,
On Jan 24, 2006, at 1:08 PM, Gordon Rowell wrote:
- License statement - either as per qpsmtpd or as per Perl or
similar open license
No, it really should be MIT licensed ("as per qpsmtpd") to go in the
distribution.
There are a few exceptions (only your plugins at a cursory glance),
bu
Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote:
On Jan 24, 2006, at 1:08 PM, Gordon Rowell wrote:
- License statement - either as per qpsmtpd or as per Perl or similar
open license
No, it really should be MIT licensed ("as per qpsmtpd") to go in the
distribution.
There are a few exceptions (only your plugins
On Jan 24, 2006, at 8:09 PM, Peter Eisch wrote:
Hi Peter,
Does stuff like this actually work? My submissions would just sit
there
without even getting a thumbs up/down vote, review or even [...]
Warnock's dilemma! :-)
Maybe things are different now?
I hope so!
If you send the patch o
On Jan 24, 2006, at 9:02 PM, Gordon Rowell wrote:
I don't have an issue with my qpsmtpd plugins being changed to state:
[...]
This software is free software and may be distributed under the same
terms as qpsmtpd itself.
Done (r603); thank you.
Though as a distro maintainer, we do have a si
On 1/25/06 1:07 AM, "Ask Bjørn Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Maybe things are different now?
>
> I hope so!
>
> If you send the patch or bug report to the RT address (bugs dash
> qpsmtpd at rt.perl.org) then at least you won't "get Warnock'ed".
Cool. At some point I'll have to revisit
On 1/25/06, Ask Bjørn Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As a distro maintainer you should appreciate software licensed with
> the MIT/X11 license...
I have been under the impression that the AL is more permissive
than the MIT/X11 and there would be no conflict in distributing AL
code in a MIT
Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote:
[...]
Even worse if one piece of software uses multiple completely different
licenses. ;-)
Sure.
As a distro maintainer you should appreciate software licensed with the
MIT/X11 license...
Ah, but which version of that beastie? :-(
Life would be made quite a bit
17 matches
Mail list logo
