Quoting john dooley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I could split the Pit with different headers into say PMsurgery and > OPGPsurgery and alter the python code to parse out the various header > choices and then handle those methods as appropriately thus including an > OPGP email handler. But thats too far for me technically (newbie) and > I have no time. Also, ideally those files should be tracked and married > with an ack and reports generated about non acked batches. So suddenly > Im looking at a second (PIT report) database to manage that and the > project climbs an order of magnitude plus code wise to do those things. > And then, it would be nice to have some smarts between here and there > so I could test if "there" is alive or not. Plus it has to be tested and > a client end interface sorted. Ok,
if you had a process (running Linux? Windows?) which polls the directory and can send files either GPG-email (to Horst, Alex Bennett, and me ;-) or GPG-over-HTTP (i.e. to MO clients), and generates ACKs in the format you want to feed back into the legacy database, plus a nice web interface to adminster, and check message status, etc., would you be (willing to consider) using it? Talking to MO clients depends on having access to their routing database (presumably for a fee, which IMHO is fair enough) Andrew: would you allow this? what if we cache the routing data (so we only need to ask you once)? Instead, would you prefer the messages to go through your servers? Ian _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
