> Robert Spier wrote: > > (Side note, John, your newsreader is not doing nice things to the mail > > headers.) > (Sorry, Mozilla mail, you know. :o Care to be specific and I'll open > a ticket with them?)
(It loses the (To|Cc): qpsmtpd at perl.org, so it's really annoying to reply to.) > > There's a namespace issue, because there are potentially multiple > > results from multiple callbacks. > > Oh, did you fix the multiple instance plugin problem then? Remember I > discovered that I couldn't sucessfully run two different > queue/qmail-queue instances with different parameters (I'm > experimenting with qmqp). No, not yet. This is fixable, but we need to think about it a little. I'm thinking more of the results of pluginA from different hook points. A quick hack to fix the multiple instance plugin issue is just to have the plugin loader check to see if something by that name already exists, and if it does, append .0 or .1 or something to the end. > BTW, is trunk working again, then? When I checked it out yesterday, I > discovered that some of the hooks were not running (like none of the > check* modules would fire). I had to back out the last set of > changes, since I had stupidly sync'd and smerged (Yes, I am using svk! > Ask me how(TM)!). Um. Not sure about this problem. My test instance doesn't seem to touch that. I hope its not something I broke. You don't need it, but there's a mirror at http://svn.develooper.com/qpsmtpd/cvs/ for those who want to play along with svk or svn. > Clearly, the project policy is not that trunk is always [mostly] > functional (ouch). Once I finish up this stupid mail conversion (400 > users and many gigabytes of mail), I'll try and spend a little time > writing more tests (and maybe a Makefile.PL to make it easier to do > the tests). I think the policy is that trunk is supposed to be always [mostly] functional. We're just um.. um... um... having different definitions of [mostly]. > p.s. is anyone interested in seeing VRFY actually do something for > specific remote hosts? I have a crude hack so my remote MX boxes can > refuse mail for non-local accounts, but it could easily be changed > into a more elegant hook. Wow. I thought VRFY had been banished to the boonies around the time the spammers started doing dictionary attacks on it. Can you describe a little more what you mean by a crude hack? -R
