I have an updated, almost ready for beta, version up now. Please have a look
and let me know what you think.
My next update message should be to notify of a downloadable beta (full
source), then hopefully a workable freeware release.
Again, the info.
http://spamreview.argolink.net
user: [EMAIL
Ok, I just uploaded a new revision to my Spambox App.
The URL is http://spamreview.argolink.net
email is [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pass is demo
Info at http://spamreview.argolink.net/doc
It now has full capability to manage settings per user. A few more issues to
resolve and I will look at packaging it
this work...?
Bill
-Original Message-
From: Charles Frolick [mailto:cmfrolick;argolink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 12:21 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Update of SpamReview web app (not
related to SpamReview hold manager)
I caught a little settings
... However, I wonder what the
effective load would be on an IMail/Declude JunkMail server with a large
customer base with all of the per-user files that would be required to make
this work...?
Actually, there would normally be very little (if any) extra overhead. The
only extra overhead I
So it wouldn't work for the 6085accounts on
my default host. :-)
Glenn Z.
- Original Message -
From:
R. Scott
Perry
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 5:32
PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Update of
SpamReview web app (not related
So it wouldn't work for the 6085 accounts on my default host. :-)
It would work, there would just be a performance penalty -- but it wouldn't
be any worse than the performance penalty of IMail having 6,085 user
subdirectories off of the same directory. :)
If it *was* a performance issue,
. :-)
Glenn Z.
- Original Message -
From: R. Scott Perry
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 5:32 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Update of SpamReview web app (not related to
SpamReview hold manager)
... However, I wonder what the
effective load would
