Chris Garrigues wrote:
Two weeks into membership on this list and I'm beginning to realize that the
design of plugins is utterly chaotic. Since we're at 0.40, I guess that's
okay, but by 1.0 I hope it's no longer true. Is there a roadmap which states
when along the way the distribution will
On Sep 5, 2007, at 3:27 PM, Chris Garrigues wrote:
okay...you've demonstrated that the other more sensible way works
fine...so why
does the default distribution do it the way it does?
Isn't it mostly a matter of poor naming ? Those plugins were some of
the first ones when we weren't so
From: Johan Almqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 09:33:33 +0200
Chris Garrigues wrote:
Two weeks into membership on this list and I'm beginning to realize that
the
design of plugins is utterly chaotic. Since we're at 0.40, I guess that's
okay, but by 1.0 I hope it's
Hi
Fuelled by some of the recent discussions, I think the whitelisting
concept needs to be re-thought.
My idea would be that there are only two things that can be whitelisted:
connections and transactions. On the base of what logic, and at what
stage, is up to the plugin, but if the
Fuelled by some of the recent discussions, I think the whitelisting
concept needs to be re-thought.
i agree
My idea would be that there are only two things that can be whitelisted:
connections and transactions. On the base of what logic, and at what
stage, is up to the plugin, but if the
On 6-Sep-07, at 11:33 AM, Johan Almqvist wrote:
My idea would be that there are only two things that can be
whitelisted: connections and transactions. On the base of what
logic, and at what stage, is up to the plugin, but if the whitelist
flag is set, any DENY* return value from subsequent
Isn't it mostly a matter of poor naming ?
Only partly, a lot is you need ...
The plan is, eventually, to have proper APIs and plugin hooks for
some of the things notes are used for now (whitelists, user
information, ).
Yeah. For example, I have several plugins that check something
On 6-Sep-07, at 1:47 PM, Johan Almqvist wrote:
Matt Sergeant wrote:
The way I see it is that whitelisting is basically meant as a
bypass for anti-spam filters, but not (for example) certain other
filters (like recipient checks). So I wondered if hooks should
declare themselves as
Some of this will be easier to fix if if let plugins register to be
run first and last.
Eeep. No. I like the strict ordering guarantees given by the config
file. The first/last stuff ends up just being a morass.
