On 2013/01/11 10:45, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 1/11/2013 1:10 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 1/10/2013 8:46 PM, jdow wrote:
I'd suggest an option similar to the header option.
pass_errors5,18,21,2,6
ignore_errors23,3,19
Spamc currently ha
On 1/11/2013 5:30 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
Not according to the manpage: -x and --no-safe-fallback are the same
and can use error codes on the range 64-98
I think that's an error. Read it like this:
If one of the "-x", "-L" or "-C" options are specified, 'safe fallback'
will be disabled, a
On Fri, 2013-01-11 at 16:35 -0500, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> As noted, the default is that 0 is the exit code for everything. So you
> should expect 0.
>
OK
> echo "junk line"| spamc; echo $?
>
>
> > echo "junk line"| spamc -x; echo $?1 0
> The error level with -x is could s
On 1/11/2013 4:06 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
These options were added through real-world usage scenarios. Removing
them is not something I can support without more study that we aren't
breaking things for people.
All I'm saying is that, because the -E --exitcodes option causes the
default exit
On 1/10/2013 3:13 PM, Tom Hendrikx wrote:
> On 10-01-13 19:55, Ben Johnson wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/10/2013 1:06 PM, RW wrote:
>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:48:07 -0500
>>> Ben Johnson wrote:
pon further consideration, this behavior makes perfect sense if the
mailbox user has moved the message
On 1/10/2013 4:12 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013, Ben Johnson wrote:
>
>> So, at this point, I'm struggling to understand how the following
>> happened.
>>
>> Over the course of 15 minutes, I received the same exact message four
>> times. Each time, the message was sent to the same
On 11-01-13 19:45, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 1/11/2013 1:10 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2013, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/10/2013 8:46 PM, jdow wrote:
I'd suggest an option similar to the header option.
pass_errors5,18,21,2,6
ignore_errors23,3,
On 1/11/2013 1:10 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 1/10/2013 8:46 PM, jdow wrote:
I'd suggest an option similar to the header option.
pass_errors5,18,21,2,6
ignore_errors23,3,19
Spamc currently has no options file currently so this is a big c
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 1/10/2013 8:46 PM, jdow wrote:
> I'd suggest an option similar to the header option.
>
> pass_errors5,18,21,2,6
> ignore_errors23,3,19
Spamc currently has no options file currently so thi
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 1/10/2013 8:46 PM, jdow wrote:
I'd suggest an option similar to the header option.
pass_errors5,18,21,2,6
ignore_errors23,3,19
Spamc currently has no options file currently so this is a big change that
someone will need to open a bu
On 1/10/2013 8:46 PM, jdow wrote:
I'd suggest an option similar to the header option.
pass_errors5,18,21,2,6
ignore_errors23,3,19
Those example lines would guarantee errors 5 ,18 ,21 ,2, and 6 would pass
through to the consumer and suppress error notification for 23, 3, and
19.
If the
On 1/11/2013 7:52 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Thu, 2013-01-10 at 19:49 -0500, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
Do the scenarios you have identified cover all current usage of spamd?
The only use scenario I mentioned is entirely my own: I make no claims
that anybody else uses spamc in the same way.
I
On Thu, 2013-01-10 at 19:49 -0500, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> Do the scenarios you have identified cover all current usage of spamd?
>
The only use scenario I mentioned is entirely my own: I make no claims
that anybody else uses spamc in the same way.
> Specifically things like MTAs that integrate
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 13:55:58 -0500
Ben Johnson wrote:
> So, at this point, I'm struggling to understand how the following
> happened.
>
> Over the course of 15 minutes, I received the same exact message four
> times. Each time, the message was sent to the same recipient mailbox.
> The "From" and
14 matches
Mail list logo
