On Friday 24 March 2006 17:41, Jeremy Kister wrote:
> On 3/24/2006 5:06 PM, Jeremy Kitchen wrote:
> >> vdelivermail needs to respect qmail-inject's exit code, hence the
> >> proposed patch.
> >
> > no, the real question is why is vpopmail even using qmail-inject to
> > re-queue forwarded messages.  Instead, qmail-queue should be used
> > directly.
> While I'm sure you could argue that point, I'm perfectly willing to
> accept qmail-inject's tainting.  there'd be a lot of code plucked from
> qmail-inject (or new-inject) to go into vdelivermail, which i'm not sure
> is quite the right thing to do.

not really.  vpopmail could just use the qmail.c interface (which is what all 
of djb's programs that use qmail-queue use to interface with it) to talk to 

> In the interim, I'm still looking for opinion on whether or not the
> proposed patch makes everyone happy.  I tested it briefly, and it seems
> to deal with fatal, deferral, and successful qmail-inject codes correctly.

looks good to me, but it's still a bandaid imo.


Jeremy Kitchen ++ [EMAIL PROTECTED]

In the beginning was The Word and The Word was Content-type: text/plain
  -- The Word of Bob.

Attachment: pgpldLVmb3vKA.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to