Andreas,
Please, do not take this poorly. I am simply asking questions to make
sure this patch/plugin is a good idea in the form you suggest.
I am a user of the other patch. I am wondering if this is worth it. Your
patch, if it links against libdspam will "bloat" dovecot. What do we
gain?
Not every message goes through dspam (the fork, exec, etc.). It is only
those that were classified incorrectly. I agree with many of your
suggested changes.
Additionally, most open source projects seem to use autoconf/automake.
What do we gain by switching to cmake instead of making it work some how
with dovecots autoconf/automake system?
Depending on your answers, I will try your patch and help you clean it up.
Trever Adams
Andreas Schneider wrote:> Hi,
>
> I've found the dovecot dspam plugin and looked at the code. I forks and
> calls the dspam binary for every mail. I didn't like this behavior, so
> I've migrated it to use libdspam.
>
> The plugin still needs more love:
> * Use cmake instead of a Makefile
> * Make the spam folder configurable in the dovecot.conf
> * Code cleanup and more comments.
>
> Please test. Comments and patches are welcome ;)
>
> http://www.cynapses.org/tmp/dovecot-dspam-plugin-0.1.tar.gz
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- andreas
>
>