On 3/10/2011 11:27 PM, Robert Spier wrote:
Tim Meadowcroft wrote:
On Thursday 10 March 2011 18:06:04 Robert Spier wrote:
Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote:
On Mar 10, 2011, at 6:49, Matt Sergeant wrote:
Should we have plugins/qmail and plugins/postfix dirs?
I like that idea.
I'm not sure I do. The existing directories don't really line up that
way, and I don't think we're going to have a huge number of
postfix/qmail split plugins. So I see this more as a suffix.
I wouldn't mind moving these into some sort of directory (maybe rcpt?)
but moving plugins is hard, because everyone needs to update their
config/plugins file.
Are you just talking about the plugins config file understanding names as paths
rather than as simply filenames (and presumably config files mirroring the same
structure) - I would see this as a good thing (I can put my specific plugins
into local/ or similar, and symlinks can be used if I want to be fancy) ? I
presume you could leave all existing plugins in the "root" but suggest
migrating them over time...
No. The plugins config already understands directories just fine.
And recent versions of qpsmtpd support a config file to set the plugin
roots:
qpsmtpd]$ cat config/plugin_dirs
/home/smtp/qpsmtpd/plugins.site
/home/smtp/qpsmtpd/plugins
I was disagreeing with the proposed taxonomy of having a qmail and
postfix directory, as it doesn't really fit with what we have right
now:
plugins]$ find . -type d
.
./async
./async/queue
./virus
./queue
./logging
./auth
./ident
-R
One solution would be to add a new directory named 'backscatter' and put
both scripts in there with the same prefix (check_goodrcptto) and with a
distinguishing suffix (_postfix & _qmail). That would be clear to people
that are interested in the subject.
Todd
