If you bothered to actually read my post, you'd see that I merely seconded the notion that a hook for a sender-verification system might be a good idea. In fact, I agreed with your idea that we should exclude SPF, and all other sender-verification systems, as there are much broader uses for such a hook.
qmail-ldap exists *only* because we decided that regular qmail does not meet our needs. It is possible that qmail-ldap might want to implement this idea, even if regular qmail does not. We can certainly save some time by considering the existing posts to the qmail list. Those post however, do not preclude us from having our own discussion. More importantly, they don't give you the prerogative to police that discussion.
So if you could, even just for a day or two, avoid bashing every post that's even tangentially related to SPF, I'd really appreciate it. Who knows, we might even make it easier for you to implement whatever "half-baked" sender-verification system you prefer.
Zach
*Which is true, by the way, if you use the McDonald's method for determining "best." Micro~1 sells more copies of Windows than anyone else sells of any other desktop operating system, making it best by number of copies sold.
On Jun 21, 2004, at 9:37 PM, Henning Brauer wrote:
blah blah blah blah
thsi has been explained and discussed on teh regular qmail list to death, there is no point in repeating it here.
* Zachary Kotlarek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-21 17:16]:
--
Zachary P. Kotlarek President, Cynic by Trade [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(888) 309-5653 http://www.cynicbytrade.com/
Cynic by Trade Information Technology Services "The IT Department You Can Afford."
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
