Mate Wierdl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 05:52:13PM -0600, Jason R. Mastaler wrote:
>> The real tragedy is that I know there is no chance of getting this
>> fixed in the main qmail dist, or I'd already have provided patches.
>
>1) This is a feature you want, and other people apparently never
> missed it. Why is it so important, btwy?
This entire thread has been rather disheartening. Perhaps I'm more
sensitive than most--the newbie bashing here bothered me enough to
prompt a leave-of-absence from the list, and it's still a *serious*
problem in my opinion. But Jason isn't a clueless newbie frivilously
demanding that someone supply him with a patch. He's the developer of
a highly effective, highly useful, very well documented, free
anti-spam utility for qmail. He's got a qmail problem that he's trying
to resolve--as a service to the users of his utility--and we should be
*helping* him, not telling him there's no problem. I'm not singling
out Mate--this was just a convenient time to bring this up.
BTW, Jason, I think the "-p prefix" option to specify the prefix to
strip is the way to go.
>2) Indeed, I am quite sure there will not be any more versions of
> qmail. So go ahead, and make your patch, since qmail is nowadays
> more like qmail+patches. But please make the feature more general:
> really keep the original envelope recipient in a separate variable, like
> ORECIPIENT; that is, forget about just dealing with a PREPEND variable.
Oops, Mate's been turned into a troll.
-Dave
