Sam, Yes, but not a whole lot. Please have a look: http://www.interazioni.it/opensource/chkuser/features.html and let us know what you think.
Sam Clippinger wrote: > Michael: I know QMT includes recipient validation already, but I would > like to add it to spamdyke so it can also be used on non-QMT servers. I > know a number of sysmadmen (myself included) who live by the policy > "Never try to upgrade or patch a working qmail server." It's always > been easier (and safer) to install qmail on a new server and migrate to > it -- modifying an existing installation often (in my experience) leads > to disaster. Adding recipient validation to spamdyke would allow those > folks to add the filter without risking their entire mail server setup. > > Eric: I've glanced at chkuser a couple of times but I've never actually > installed or used it. Does it do anything other than recipient validation? > > -- Sam Clippinger > > Eric Shubert wrote: >> Michael Colvin wrote: >> >>> After looking into QMT, which has recipient validation built in, I'm not >>> sure Spamdyke really needs it... The implementation in QMT allows for >>> VPOPmail and non-VPOPmail qmail servers to easily validate recipients. If >>> Spamdyke implemented a version based on cdb files, with VPOPmail servers, >>> something would have to be put in place to build those cdb files from the >>> database. >>> >>> Spamdyke is fantastic at what it does. I'm not sure that it needs to be >>> complicated. Of course, as long as the validation is easy enough to >>> disable, then I guess it wouldn't matter, and non-VPOPmail users could >>> enable it and use the cdb files... If Spamdyke included the ability to >>> validate against the VPOPmail database, I'm not sure it would be any more or >>> less efficient than the patch that's included in QMT. Eric? >>> >> My guess is that performance would be about the same whether spamdyke or >> chkuser does the validation. I don't see the issue as being performance >> related though. I'm more interested in having configuration options in a >> simple, manageable place. I'd like to see spamdyke handle whatever >> configuration variables are practical, even if spamdyke were to simply >> set an environment variable for some other code to pick up. The fewer >> number of patches to qmail source, the better. >> >> Which makes me wonder about chkuser. That patch is implemented in a >> non-invasive fashion, as most of the code sits outside of qmail proper. >> Most if not all of the chkuser configuration parameters can be altered >> with environment variables. >> >> Sam, have you looked at bringing chkuser functionality into the spamdyke >> realm? I would expect that you could probably find a way to integrate >> chkuser into spamdyke, eliminating the need for the chkuser patch to >> qmail. This would simply QMT a bit as well. >> >> Thanks for bringing this up Michael. >> >> -- -Eric 'shubes' _______________________________________________ spamdyke-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
