On 2006-02-07, at 0214, Adam Ossenford wrote:


I was able to integrate your qmail-1.03-jms1.6c patch and the qmail tap patch successfully.

did you do mine first and then qmailtap, or the other way around? did the patch apply cleanly or were there any rejects which had to be handled manually?

It compiled and ran with the tap functionality. However, I could not give any testimonial about performance loss due to QUEUE_EXTRA because the test server never reached production. I understand you have released an updated version of your combined patch. I haven't had an opportunity to attempt combining the two once again. If the server isn't high volume would the functionality outweigh the performance loss due to the drawbacks with QUEUE_EXTRA?

if the QUEUE_EXTRA recipient is local, and the .qmail file controlling it simply delivers to a maildir, then there shouldn't be much of a performance hit at all.

however, my question isn't so much about performance as it is about whether or not it's safe to integrate the qmailtap patch into my combined patch, knowing that this will dump it on a lot of qmailrocks users. i know it's going to cause questions, i was hoping that somebody would tell me that it won't kill servers by setting up an endless loop when somebody sets up a tap whose target causes the "tapped" copy of the message to match the same rule again.

there's also the fact that i haven't actually compiled the qmailtap stuff, i honestly don't know if it's a "bigger badder QUEUE_EXTRA patch" or if it's the same QUEUE_EXTRA idea, pointing to a .qmail file that runs an external "qmailtap" program which forwards the message if it finds a matching rule, or drops it if no match is found. i haven't had the time to play with it myself, i was hoping somebody here had used it and could answer the question without my having to build a test server and try to break it.

thanks for letting me know it works with 6c... this was the first version to include the EXT_TODO patch. i had somebody on the qmailrocks list tell me that he had compiled it, but couldn't use it because it was apparently causing qmail-send to segfault. now i know that it should work, maybe he did something funky when combining the patches or something...

--------------------------------------------------
| John M. Simpson - KG4ZOW - Programmer At Large |
| http://www.jms1.net/           <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |
--------------------------------------------------
| Mac OS X proves that it's easier to make UNIX  |
| pretty than it is to make Windows secure.      |
--------------------------------------------------


Attachment: PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply via email to