On Thu, 2004-10-21 at 11:42, Theo Schlossnagle wrote:
James Couzens wrote:
See! They *DO* pay attention!
Lets be honest here, a milter is great for testing, but will we see a
patch against the source code?
Have you reviewed my library and Sendmail source patches?
Why would we expect a patch to the sendmail source with "yet another
standard outside RFC2821" when M=milters are the officially supported
extension framework for Sendmail. Sendmail itself writes milters for
features over patching source. This is _why_ extension systems exist.
Apache's modules are widely adopted and in heavy production use and no
one expects them to be included in the Apache core.
An excellent example thank you Theo. Perhaps you arrived at this all on
your own, but I did not. And without some form of communication from
Sendmail what would you expect me to think?
Remembering here that last time I checked, if you put the Apache
Software Foundation next to Sendmail Inc. you would not be hard pressed
to find the differences in motivation.
Cheers,
James
--
James Couzens,
Programmer
( ( (
((__)) __\|/__ __|-|__ '. ___ .'
(00) (o o) (0~0) ' (> <) '
---nn-(o__o)-nn---ooO--(_)--Ooo--ooO--(_)--Ooo---ooO--(_)--Ooo---
http://libspf.org -- ANSI C Sender Policy Framework library
http://libsrs.org -- ANSI C Sender Rewriting Scheme library
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PGP: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x7A7C7DCF
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
http://www.InboxEvent.com/?s=d --- Inbox Event Nov 17-19 in Atlanta features
SPF and Sender ID.
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part