[Dovecot] VERY cool add-on request.

[Adam M. Dunn]

Thanks for re-itterating the existance of your plugin.  I'm new to
the mailing lists so I hadn't seen it before, but this is sort of what I
was getting at.  I would still love to see the idea incorporated into
Dovecot with config file parameters, and I'm happy to see I'm not alone,
but if a plugin works in the meantime that's all I care about at the
moment.

Unfortunately I'm using the Spamassassin not Dspam, so I'm pooring over
the plugin code to try and figure out how to adapt it.  I know  
perl/php/shell/etc..., but nothing about C, so I'm having a little
difficulty, and really don't have time to learn it for this fix (although
C is on my list of things to learn :).


You say it should be fairly easy, so would someone be willing to take on
this task of patching the plugin to make it more general, or at minimum
point me to what I need to change?



thanks,
Adam


On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Johannes Berg wrote:

> On Sat, 2006-03-18 at 09:25 -0500, David A. Lee wrote:
> > You refered to a specific one for dspam.
> > Would it be easy to generalize ?
> 
> Yes, shouldn't be too hard.
> But the plugin also looks at headers etc. which would be very hard to
> capture in a config file. Well, not impossible, but cumbersome.
> 
> I'm not sure what you're after but say you want to be able to define
> folder actions in a config file. Let me draw up a hypothetical config
> file example with the logic of the dspam plugin. The syntax is sort of
> borrowed from Exim :)
> 
> ----begin folder action config----
> copy into "SPAM"
> 	fail condition !${defined:header:X-DSpam-Signature}
> 	fail message "Message doesn't have dspam signature!"
> 	run "dspam --signature ${header:X-DSpam-Signature} --is-spam"
> 
> copy outof "SPAM"
> 	ignore to "Trash"
> 	fail condition !${defined:header:X-DSpam-Signature}
> 	fail message "Message doesn't have dspam signature!"
> 	run "dspam --signature ${header:X-DSpam-Signature} --not-spam"
> ----end folder action config----
> 
> I'm sure others can come up with examples where the config file has to
> be even more elaborate... I can imagine having a 'pipe' action instead
> of 'run' that would give the command the message on stdin for example.
> 
> johannes
>