(re-arranging things so the sequence of my answers makes sense...)
On 2006-04-15, at 2237, Rick Widmer wrote:
John Simpson wrote:
if the onchange script needs to know whether the user's request
affected a real or alias domain, simply look to see if there IS
another domain listed afterward-
John Simpson wrote:
On 2006-04-16, at 0050, Rick Widmer wrote:
I've just committed John Simpson's onchange patch. I've added the
ability to enable it with --enable-onchange-script, and a file
README.onchange.
cool... except that i've updated the patch twice today, and i'm in the
On 2006-04-16, at 0334, Rick Widmer wrote:
John Simpson wrote:
On 2006-04-16, at 0050, Rick Widmer wrote:
I've just committed John Simpson's onchange patch. I've added
the ability to enable it with --enable-onchange-script, and a
file README.onchange.
cool... except that i've
John Simpson wrote:
(re-arranging things so the sequence of my answers makes sense...)
On 2006-04-15, at 2237, Rick Widmer wrote:
John Simpson wrote:
I do think it is a good idea to name the parent domain if you delete
an alias domain, even if I don't know how someone would use it
today.
Rick Widmer wrote:
Robin Bowes wrote:
What is the problem you are trying to solve?
No real problem, just something I consider wasteful of resources. For
example, if all you are doing is rebuilding a validrcptto database
currently you are doing it three times every time you add a domain.
John Simpson wrote:
On 2006-04-15, at 1917, Rick Widmer wrote:
Robin Bowes wrote:
What is the problem you are trying to solve?
No real problem, just something I consider wasteful of resources. For
example, if all you are doing is rebuilding a validrcptto database
currently you are doing it
Robin Bowes wrote:
I really don't think the multiple calls cause any problem at all and add
clarity, i.e. they reflect what's actually happening rather than
requiring the sysadmin to make assumptions about what's going on behind
the scenes. For example, assuming that a postmaster user is
Rick Widmer wrote:
I don't see any value in reporting a delete operation after the fact,
other than to log it. On the other hand it might be a good idea to move
the script before the delete. That would give you a chance to take a
snapshot of the resource usage right before delete, or maybe
Robin Bowes wrote:
What is [EMAIL PROTECTED] also forwards to [EMAIL PROTECTED] How does
valias_remove [EMAIL PROTECTED] know which alias to remove?
valias_remove( alias, domain, alias_line );
You would call:
valias_remove( 'foobar', 'example.com', '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' );
or to
John Simpson wrote:
(re-arranging things so the sequence of my answers makes sense...)
On 2006-04-15, at 2237, Rick Widmer wrote:
John Simpson wrote:
for me, the trick is dealing with the fact that input may arrive on
the pipe at any time- including three notifications within the space
of
John Simpson wrote:
On 2006-04-16, at 0334, Rick Widmer wrote:
John Simpson wrote:
On 2006-04-16, at 0050, Rick Widmer wrote:
anything lower than 4 won't compile if you're using mysql or pgsql...
and 5 includes your suggestion of moving the del_domain and del_user
notifications to
Robin Bowes wrote:
Having thought about this some more, I think that a better approach
would be to have both pre- and post- hooks for each action and to call a
separate script for each hook.
This has some possibilities. There would be an advantage if most of the
hooks were empty, and a
Rick Widmer wrote:
Robin Bowes wrote:
Having thought about this some more, I think that a better approach
would be to have both pre- and post- hooks for each action and to call a
separate script for each hook.
This has some possibilities. There would be an advantage if most of the
hooks
On 2006-04-16, at 0822, Rick Widmer wrote:
John Simpson wrote:
i just had a thought- is there a vchkpw-devel mailing list that
this conversation should be moved to? i suspect that most people
on the list aren't interested in these kinds of low-level
details- or maybe i'm wrong and
On 2006-04-16, at 0639, Robin Bowes wrote:
If you look at qpsmtpd (which is where I believe the idea of onchange
hooks came from)
not really... it's something i've wished that vpopmail had for
several years, but never had the time to write.
It also calls different scripts for each hook
On 2006-04-16, at 1649, Robin Bowes wrote:
John Simpson wrote:
On 2006-04-16, at 0639, Robin Bowes wrote:
It also calls different scripts for each hook rather than
having one
monolithic something's changed script. Would that be a better
approach
for vpopmail?
i don't think so. if you
Robin Bowes wrote:
Rick Widmer wrote:
I would still argue that the hooks should match the calls in the vopmail
api, and not an arbitrary subset of the operations within them.
Why? Why not make the hooks reflect the useful operations rather than
just what goes in internal to vpopmail?
I
17 matches
Mail list logo
