Buzzz wrote:
>> I don't know for sure, but I doubt it.
>>
>> While it appears to be a flexible framework, the overall effectiveness is
>> only as good as the plugins. The plugins I see listed provide capabilities
>> that are already in the toaster. Is there something specific you'd like to
>> use that the toaster doesn't already provide?
>>
>> --
> I have no particular feature would like to implement .
>
> I'm researching the optimal configuration to make a spam-gateway with
> qmail and I would like
> to use the toaster as it's base .
>
> I prefer the approach of spp cause is much more modular than write a patch
> everytime i need i new a feature and it appears to be not too far from
> the modularity of postfix .
>
> Mine would be only a curiosity regarding qmt's support for spp, nothing
> more .
>
> Thx for help :)
>
> Have Fun,
> Davide
>
I agree with you. spp is a very good approach. I know that the chkuser patch
is written in a similar fashion, with minimal impact to the qmail-smtp code
itself. I don't know the reasons why spp wasn't used in the toaster to begin
with. Perhaps it wasn't available at the time the toaster began. It'd be a
good bit of work to change things over, I'm sure.
I think that the toaster would be a good choice for your spam-gateway. Don't
hesitate to ask the list about any questions you might have.
NJoy!
--
-Eric 'shubes'
---------------------------------------------------------------------
QmailToaster hosted by: VR Hosted <http://www.vr.org>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
