On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 21:00:19 -0700
Robert Spier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This CL appears to remove the functionality of processing the hook's
return value. Am I misreading it?
Yes, it removes it from this part. The return values are
checked in Qpsmtpd::SMTP::unrecognized_command_respond(),
I wrote some small helper scripts for parsing logs. Would they be
useful enough to include in qpsmtpd?
--
JT Moree
#!/bin/sh
usage()
{
cat FOO
$0 - utility to parse qpsmtpd log messages for a given string and get the
whole transaction
Usage: $0 logfile [grep options] text_to_find
I wrote some small helper scripts for parsing logs. Would they be
useful enough to include in qpsmtpd?
--
JT Moree
You assume here that the process numbers are different for each message.
While it will work for forkserver and tcpserver, that is not the case
with prefork or Apache (also
Sydney Bogaert wrote:
I wrote some small helper scripts for parsing logs. Would they be
useful enough to include in qpsmtpd?
You assume here that the process numbers are different for each message.
While it will work for forkserver and tcpserver, that is not the case
with prefork or Apache
On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 13:06 -0700, James W. Abendschan wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Sydney Bogaert wrote:
You assume here that the process numbers are different for each message.
While it will work for forkserver and tcpserver, that is not the case
with prefork or Apache (also preforking).
I wrote a plugin last weekend that logs mail summary to a DB (sqlite at the
moment, I plan on making it more flexible.) If anyone is interested, let me
know how I could modify it to make it more useful to you (logging message-id,
etc.) Suggestions/questions are welcome.
I plan on writing a
