On Wed, 22 Nov 2006, John Peacock wrote:
> As Matt suggested, it is almost certainly easier to write a queue plugin
> than to embed that functionality in the core.
Ok, so before I go off and write my own, has anyone else already
written a queue plugin to rewrite (or drop) spamassassin-tagged mess
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Sydney Bogaert wrote:
> You assume here that the process numbers are different for each message.
> While it will work for forkserver and tcpserver, that is not the case
> with prefork or Apache (also preforking).
related: is there any work being done on standardizing qpsmtpd
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Guy Hulbert wrote:
> > These are the approaches suggested so far. I added the last one as a
> > combination of the others. Can we see a show of hands for the one
>
> Using rand is bogus. A random number generator will repeat values.
>
> Time (with sufficient resolution) is
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, James W. Abendschan wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Guy Hulbert wrote:
>
> > > These are the approaches suggested so far. I added the last one as a
> > > combination of the others. Can we see a show of hands for the one
> >
> > Using rand
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Jens Weibler wrote:
> mmh, multiplexed?
> A mailserver can send multiple mails within one tcp-connection:
> "There may be zero or more, transactions in a session." - RFC2821
Ah, good point. Okay then, obviously qpsmtpd now needs to be rewritten
to make me right -- after leav
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Guy Hulbert wrote:
> > fqdn + time + peer TCP port will be pretty unique, regardless of
>
> fqdn is the trivial part
>
> rand will be "pretty unique" ...
Initial connection time, peer IP, and peer port will only
repeat if the connection is torn down and restablished with
the
