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 qmail-queue. > 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 -- Jeremy Kitchen ++ [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the beginning was The Word and The Word was Content-type: text/plain -- The Word of Bob.
Description: PGP signature