similar to: link_to using smart API

On 3/10/19 9:07 AM, Yassine Chaouche via dovecot wrote: > > On 3/9/19 12:41 PM, Monis Monther via dovecot wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> We have an alias group named xyz at example.com >> <mailto:xyz at example.com>, this alias group has 3 actual users >> a at example.com <mailto:a at example.com>, b at example.com >> <mailto:b at

I am curious to know how did you define the filter on an alias in the first place ? is it a filter defined globaly in dovecot ? I don't see how it can be defined in any individual mailbox. Can you show the dovecot/sieve configuration to achieve this ? Yassine. On 3/10/19 11:40 AM, Monis Monther via dovecot wrote: > Hi Yassine, > > Thanks for the effort, unfortunately, we cannot

Hi, The following patches fix few bugs/APIs in configfs. The third one depends on the patch introducing configfs_dirent_lock previously submitted in http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/12/232 Louis -- Dr Louis Rilling Kerlabs Skype: louis.rilling Batiment Germanium Phone: (+33|0) 6 80 89 08 23 80 avenue des Buttes de Coesmes http://www.kerlabs.com/ 35700 Rennes

Hi Yassine, Thanks for the effort, unfortunately, we cannot turn it into an actual mailbox, this is a long story that I don't want to include here. but it would not be a valid option in our environment. Any other ideas Is it possible to do it with vacation? Is there another auto responder or plugin that can achieve this? How do ticketing systems handle this? Thanks Monis On Sun, Mar 10,

Since sending to the alias will send to a, b and c, just define the filter on one mailbox only instead of making it global I guess. Yassine. On 3/10/19 11:51 AM, Yassine Chaouche via dovecot wrote: > > I am curious to know how did you define the filter on an alias in the > first place ? is it a filter defined globaly in dovecot ? I don't see > how it can be defined in any

@odhiambo : we may later, but currently we are dependent on this email Hi Yassine, This is actually what I have done now, but I want it to be more robust, if this user quits, then I must have someone else in the group with the rule. I have moved the rule from global sieve script to one of group members in his local sieve script, the syntax is the same As for the rule itself if header

I'm running a bit late with the e-mail this time around, but I think that's ok since there really isn't any major new features here - the bulk of the Ocfs2 update is bug fixes, or cleanups. The same goes for configfs. The only two things that could be described as features would be: - Sunil has updated Ocfs2 to provide even more live cluster locking information via debugfs. - Joel

Hi, We have an alias group named xyz at example.com, this alias group has 3 actual users a at example.com, b at example.com and c at example.com We set vacation rule on the generic sieve rule, the problem is that 3 responses are sent to the original sender. (obviously because the rule is being executed with each user in the alias group) Is it possible to set auto response only once, we tried

I''m using the latest ruby 1.9.3-head and recently whenever I run rspec (2.2+) I get the following error: I have seen others have run into this issue, but to resolve it just rolled back to a previous version of rspec or it there a better way? ruby-1.9.3-head/gems/rspec-core-2.3.1/lib/rspec/core/hooks.rb:116:in `run_hook_filtered'': undefined method `run_all'' for []:Array

Hi, I''ve been trying to develop a Rails gem/plugin with generators for Rails 3. I first had a separate gem project with a gem statement in my Gemfile with a :path option to point at it. But then I had to run $ rake install on each change in my gem to have Rails pick up on it. I have now instead put my generators inside RAILS_ROOT/lib so they are easier to test/develop. lib/generators -

I get an error using Rails 3 beta3 on Ruby 1.9.2-preview1 undefined method `current_period'' for nil:NilClass (NoMethodError) This commit should fix it http://github.com/rails/rails/commit/a0cc94b32e5b4e4dce50787eed1208406f99ea82 But I forgot how to ensure I am running on edge with Rails 3. Is it a special bundler command I need to use? Thanks! -- You received this message because

On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 11:48 PM Nikita Popov via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 9:07 PM Shoaib Meenai via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> We had this discussion a few months ago and it petered out, and it’s recently been revived in the context of upgrading the CMake version specifically for libc++ (at which

We had this discussion a few months ago and it petered out, and it’s recently been revived in the context of upgrading the CMake version specifically for libc++ (at which point people suggested upgrading the CMake version used by all of LLVM), so let’s try to move this forward. Our current required minimum version is CMake 3.4.3, which was released on January 25th 2016. It’s interesting to note

Assuming this is a one-time version bump, this seems reasonable to me. Perhaps this goes without saying, but the warning for point 1 should only happen if you don’t have CMake >= 3.13.4 installed. It sounded to me from your original message that you have an urgent need to upgrade to 3.8. Were you planning on going ahead with that right away? From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at

I’m in favor of all this. Thanks for volunteering! I’m happy to help out in whatever way. Some things it might be worth figuring out for future upgrades: * If we want to limit ourselves to CMake versions supported by LTS releases of distros, which distros should we consider, and how far back should we go (i.e. is it just the latest LTS or the last two LTS versions)? * For platforms like Ubuntu

Ubuntu 20.04 LTS will be released soon, and I believe it’ll have CMake 3.16.3, so that increases the LTS lower bound significantly. I strongly disagree with the sentiment that the build system already works so there’s no urgent need to improve it. I believe we should treat the build system like code, and the same ideas around refactoring apply. Our build system is a huge thorny mess; there’s tons

describe MessagesController, "POST create" do before(:each) do @message = mock_model(Message, :save => nil) Message.stub(:new).and_return(@message) end context "when the message fails to save" do before(:each) do @message.stub(:save).and_return(false) end it "assigns @message" do post :create assigns[:message].should

Hello, I''m currently working on a text-based roleplay browser game, and i''m trying to figure out what the best approach would be in order to create a system that allows me to assign roles to a user, and permissions based upon the role a user has. I''ve been thinking about creating a model User, which has_many :roles, and with the Role model which has_many :permissions.

> On Apr 2, 2020, at 10:19, Louis Dionne via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Okay, so we've had some discussion on this thread, and although some people (including me) would like a more aggressive policy, I believe the following will not get any objection (based on the thread). On April 23rd 2020, Ubuntu 20.04 LTS will ship with CMake 3.16.x. This will make the

'Supported' means that it comes from the packages available from the distribution that can be seen via this page. https://packages.ubuntu.com/ These packages have been processed by the Ubuntu community to obtain a reliability expectation that would not apply, for example, to a PPA. The difference between installing or building Clang and LLVM from original sources as against