On 2007-01-02, at 1018, Joshua Megerman wrote:
So we now have the question: What is the best way to proceed. I
think
that I would like to see the following changes made to the whole
roaming
users functionality in Vpopmail:
1) Document that the auth-before-smtp RELAYCLIENT= functionality
On 2007-01-02, at 1018, Joshua Megerman wrote:
So we now have the question: What is the best way to proceed. I
think
that I would like to see the following changes made to the whole
roaming
users functionality in Vpopmail:
1) Document that the auth-before-smtp RELAYCLIENT=
Josh just as curiosity what will they mega patch for qmail include?
Thanks,
Remo
Joshua Megerman wrote:
Whoa... I wasn't expecting that... Just don't send me flowers or
anything, OK? :)
OK, I think I'm seeing where you're going with this, and while it'll take
a little design work (not to
Josh just as curiosity what will they mega patch for qmail include?
Funny you should ask...
Will do (once it's out :)) - I'm a little busy working on a couple of
other things, like releasing my Uber-Mega-qmail patch set (the patches
are
done, but documenting them takes time... :), but I'll
On 2007-01-03, at 1436, Joshua Megerman wrote:
look at the 5.4.18 source code for the call_onchange() function (at
the end of vpopmail.c), see how it works, and how it gets called from
various places in the code. then consider writing a call_onauth()
function similar to that, and then calling
On Jan 3, 2007, at 10:48 AM, John Simpson wrote:
there does need to be a way to set what gets added to the smtpd
access control file for dynamic entries. i'm not sure that
highjacking an existing option is the right way to do it, nor do i
think it should be a configure option. i think it
it's out. i'm running it now.
wait- rick, did you forget to announce it on this list, or is it not
for general consumption yet? i downloaded it from sourceforge and it
works fine, including the onchange stuff.
Huh - so it is. Posted 12/30/06. Maybe I misunderstood the last message
about
On 2007-01-03, at 1625, Joshua Megerman wrote:
... I've even used one of the small patches on your site (the date-
localtime patch), although I'm not sure if you wrote it or not
(there's no credit in the file itself, and I've seen it credited to
2 different people out there, neither of
I had no idea I'd be opening such a big can of worms when I posted my
patch, though thankfully all of the feedback I've gotten has been polite,
constructive and coherent even if it's been negative :)
As I see it, this patch may fill a need that still exists, but it probably
needs a little more
