On Apr 26, 2009, at 4:06 PM, Charlie Brady wrote:
If the license is not an issue, I'd suggest to add the patch to the trunk. I haven't checked how much the patch changes (that's the point in most jurisdictions). However, generally I think the user would be the one who has to prove he has a license; that means that when in doubt about the license, the patch should not be added to the trunk. If he however said at the time, it should be freely used or something similar, I think that should be interpreted in a way saying it has the same license as the rest of qpsmtpd.On Fri, 24 Apr 2009, Baltasar Cevc wrote:On Apr 23, 2009, at 11:35 PM, Charlie Brady wrote:I've just looked in git, and I see that the smtp-forward plugin is still the primitive one which makes no attempt to pass status codes back to the originator. This *will* cause you to lose mail. Allan Joergensen made substantial changes to the plugin to fix that deficiency:http://www.mail-archive.com/qpsmtpd@perl.org/msg04147.htmlHis patches are now 404, but I believe I have copies of his code, which I'll append below.If it's still the old bad one, shouldn't we try to replace it in the trunk?IMO, yes.Do you happen to know Allans license?No, but I have seen nothing to suggest that he wasn't providing a patch for redistribution. IANAL, but the patch may be small enough not to qualify for copyright restriction anyway.Would that be possible? If not, I could try to create a new patch with similar functionality.I doubt that is necessary.
Performance was my thought. However, rethinking that: every user who needs more performance will have a bigger system and will thus probably be experienced enough to replace the plugin.Why do you think it should plug in earlier? Does the should mean must or does it mean it would just be nicer?It would be nicer for the reasons you give below.I would have said it really depends on the setup; if QP has access to the user database, it would be enough just to check whether relaying worked, otherwise I agree with you it would be wiser to check the recipients in an early stage (as that would be the only possibility to get the mail through for a part of the recipients.Correct.Should the plugin maybe exist in one variant with user checks and in one without? Or have an option?I don't see why you would ever not want to check for delivery possibility earlier.
That said, I opt for your way of doing it. ((( Baltasar Cevc ) World wide web:# http://www.openairkino.net/ (a project for the local youth; German only)
# http://technik.juz-kirchheim.de/ (programming and admin projects) # http://baltasar.cevc-topp.de/ (private homepage) ) Phone: +49 178 691 22 33 )
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
