Trever L. Adams wrote:
Andreas,
Hi Trever,
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?
it will not really bloat it the libdspam is really small.
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.
Not to fork, exec is a speed improvement and I think if you have many users using the feature at the same time you will notice it.
We read the mails, check the spam header, read the dpsam signature and reclassify it using the signature:
-- snip -- /* Attach the signature to the context */ if (_ds_set_signature(ctx, ctx->signature, signature)) { syslog(LOG_ERR, "_ds_set_signature failed!"); return -1; }
/* Call DSPAM */ if (dspam_process(ctx, NULL) != 0) { syslog(LOG_ERR, "dspam_process failed"); return -1; } -- snip --
with libdspam you can pass simply the whole message.
-- snip -- /* Call DSPAM */ if (dspam_process(ctx, message) != 0) { syslog(LOG_ERR, "dspam_process failed"); return -1; } -- snip --
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?
I hate autofools. CMake is much easier. So it is simply easier for me.
I'm fine if *you* do the autofools part ;)
Depending on your answers, I will try your patch and help you clean it up.
git clone git://git.cynapses.org/dovecot-dspam-plugin.git
dovecot-dpsam-plugin
Trever Adams
-- andreas-- http://www.cynapses.org/ - cybernetic synapses