[Dovecot] plugin problem

[Lars Stavholm]

Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 10:57 +0200, Lars Stavholm wrote:
> 
>>> Coming from this, I think there are multiple things we should do. Let me
>>> try to remember the feature requests I've seen over the past year :)
>>>
>>>  1) signature logging instead of direct retraining
>>>     (could use dovecot's dict service)
>> Why?
> 
> Why what? Why logging at all? This was part of the "scaling better"
> plan. Why using dict service? Because it has good fallover behaviour
> etc.

I see.

>>>  2) port to dovecot 1.1
>> Easy enough, you'll nail this one in minutes.
> 
> I'm just doing a proper build system etc. I'll get around to it :)
> 
>>>  3) give --user option to dspam (when no user in sig)
>> This is needed for TrainPristine=on as well.
> 
> Right. Haven't thought about pristine training much yet, I still hope
> you'll nail your bug and get rid of that requirement ;)

Well, it would seem I've nailed it. However, when using the
dspam group feature, there are configurations when the TrainPristine=on
is useful, so I'm still thinking about keeping that requirement.

>>>  4) ...
>>>
>>> To do this, I'd suggest the following. This should work great since
>>> AFAIK dovecot allows % expansion in the plugin options.
>>>
>>>  * change the options like dovecot does with A=B:C=D:...
>> There's a good idea, conformity.
> 
> Actually, I just realised that it's possible to give multiple options,
> maybe that's preferable?

It's possible, the expire plugin uses that mechanism.

> plugin {
> 	dspam_trashes = trash1,trash2,trash3
> 	dspam_options = --user=xxx --a --b --c --d
> 	...
> }

Donno, matter of taste, or is it even a bit more user friendly.

>> Didn't quite get that one: what do you mean by "backend"?
>> Part of dspam.c I assume?
> 
> Right now I'm thinking to build the plugin from multiple files depending
> on the backend selection. I'll publish the git tree this afternoon to
> show you, right now I have to go have a shower :)

I see.

>>> I think I'll start from the git tree somebody else published.
>> Sounds promising.
> 
> Decided to do my own because that one had libdspam integrated already.
> That's another backend then.

Good Luck and thanks for your help
/Lars