<we should move this thread to dbmail-dev>
I for one would vote against having those patches be accepted into CVS,
and I imagine Ilja wont commit them as they are.
Don't get me wrong though; inetd functionality is a valuable attribute,
but I don't think they should be acquired by forking existing files.
Personally, since I'm working on pre-forking functionality ala apache,
I'm pretty certain server.c is where such changes should occur.
And we should definitely allow admins to select such settings runtime:
SERVERTYPE=<inetd|standalone>
Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
On Thu, 2003-10-23 at 17:25, Matt Dickinson wrote:
Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
I assume these patches are all against CVS (aka 2.0 branch).
No, sorry. 1.2 branch.
I'll take a look @ 2.0 branch tomorrow.
Good as, I would assume that these changes would not be accepted into
CVS for 1.2, but might (I think should) be accepted for 2.0.
_______________________________________________
Dbmail mailing list
Dbmail@dbmail.org
https://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
--
________________________________________________________________
Paul Stevens mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
NET FACILITIES GROUP PGP: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Netherlands________________________________http://www.nfg.nl
