> I think that's a great idea! However, my suggestion would be to use > submit to your advantage here. The "submit" protocol is well documented > somewhere (I read it for over an hour the other night) and while a > little unwieldy IMO it also seems like the best way to do injection. > > I come from a qmail background, and it seems to me that 'submit' takes > the place of qmail-inject and qmail-queue. It also seems like there > might be some benefit to writing a qmail-inject-like wrapper for submit.
I like that idea... wonder how hard it would be. One side note though - a word of warning. SpamAssassin looks at received headers and ALREADY fails to properly recognize courier's format - as a result mail received locally from an authenticated user is not detected as such and may be penalized for coming from a black hole listed IP.... I've submitted a bug report and been told that it MAY be fixed by version 2.70 - doing this could likely derail this header test again, so if you use SA you may have to code to skip it for locally authenticated users (which is probably an efficient idea anyways...) Looking forward to the benchmarks - and also secretly wanting to try modifying a message file to see what happens. Maybe we misunderstood Sam - it is possible a modification could be ok as long as it doesn't corrupt the mime envelope?? Just a thought... m/ ------------------------------------------------------- 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
