"Mitch \(WebCob\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi Lloyd. > > Would like to hear what others think including Sam - but it sounds like the > best of a bad situation to me. I wonder how the effort and overhead you are > making compare with a patch to courier that would allow modification of > message files during global filtering. Although such an option may lower the > efficiency of delivery perhaps if submitted as a compile time option it > could be acceptable for inclusion in the distribution.
Well, from what I know about the structure of Courier, it would take a lot of refactoring to allow the modification of messages during a global filter. That's because the message file that we see during this step is a temporary file. The "real" message file has not yet been created, as far as I know. You can see the sequence of events that take place during message processing here: http://www.courier-mta.org/queue.html > Personally, I make my hacks as a last resort after trying to ellicit > support, as maintaining them - particularly when dependancies on the core > software may not be broken with future versions. If you look through the archives of this mailing list, you will see over the years that there have been numerous requests made for the ability to modify messages within global filters, and these have gotton nowhere. I believe that there is plenty of popular support for this feature which has, so far, been ignored. And keep in mind that I posted my Modest Proposal as a solicitation for discussion. Any patches that I post will also be for the purpose of a feasibility study. I seriously doubt that my patch would end up being part of any official Courier release simply because I post it here. It would just spur more discussion, I hope. And as for this patch itself, remember that it consists solely of putting a unique "id" field into the "Received" header. This is a minor change, and it mirrors what some other MTA's already do. Even if we don't end up using this to facilitate the methodology that I outlined in my Modest Proposal, it still is a useful feature in and of itself. > I've seen people running filters twice to do rejection and modification > separately - maybe before embarcing on this you might want to do some > benchmarks? I fully intend to perform some benchmarks to _compare_ the rejection/re-insertion idea with my proposed methodology. I can only do this once I have written the code outlined in my proposal. This will be completed in a few days, at which time I'll run the benchmarks and post the results here ... as well as my patch and code. > Just a few thoughts. > > m/ -- Lloyd Zusman [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click _______________________________________________ courier-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users
