I suppose the cron job approach would work, but I would like to limit the amount of sysadmin-ing thats required to maintain an email system. If the trigger is tied to the imap server doing the call to DSPAM it makes it more dynamic. Realistically, 'normal' users would be moving email into those folders as needed one off so I dont think it would tax the server that much. If someone decides to put a 1000 msgs into the SPAM folder, you could also throttle it to do 1 email every 2 sec or so to penalize the ab(user) to keep them in line. I see some neat benefits to having these folder hooks though.
/RS On November 20, 2004 06:38 pm, Peter Stuge wrote: > On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 06:24:08PM -0500, Roger Sistla wrote: > > I'm not sure how much work this would be to code or if it breaks > > any IMAP RFC's. Your comments would be welcome, even if you think > > this idea is way out in left field. > > I've been thinking about a similar solution, but using only one > specially named folder and a cron job reading the folder. > > Our two approaches each have benefits, I think your way is indeed > more elegant, but it may also be problematic if LOTS of users bang > on the server at the same time - requiring massive fork()s, which > are expensive. > > Nevertheless, I think the general concept is great; being able to > extend Binc per folder, much like I'm able to extend qmail per > mailbox using .qmail files. > > For things spammy I would certainly want to control some of these > extensions (or perhaps hooks is a better word) centrally, but for > power users it could also be very useful to put .binc files in > folders, triggering different actions when the client tries to > store a message in the corresponding folder. > > > Then there's the question of IMAP breakage. > > For the particular case with spam learning/unlearning I see no reason > it should be an issue. The message simply stays in the folder until > it is deleted. I would set up cronjobs to delete (old) files from > each user's learning folder(s) on my system, or just tell users that > they first have to move the message to the learning folder, and then > delete it, in order to train the filter. > > For the general case there may be a problem if the message doesn't > actually get stored in a folder so that it is retrievable by Binc > again, if Binc's IMAP reply to a message delivery to this folder > implies (according to the standard) that the delivery succeded. > The risk here is that the client will get confused when trying to > read the same folder, and finding it's empty. But I don't know enough > IMAP to say whether this is an issue. > > > Anyway, I think these folder hooks is a really good idea! :) > > What do others think? Andreas? > > > //Peter -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Sistla rsistla at rogers dot com ----------------------------------------------------------------------
