New Beta 4.58.6 released

[Glenn Steen]

On 28/01/07, Peter Russell <pete at enitech.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> Glenn Steen wrote:
> > On 28/01/07, Res <res at ausics.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, Julian Field wrote:
> >>
> >> > I'm just sorry that it has taken so long from the last stable
> >> release to this
> >> > one, and for so few improvements.
> >>
> >> One could also say there is not much more it could possibly do anyway...
> >>
> >> Unless you can get it to make our morning coffee that is :P
> >>
> > Well, it would be the bl**dy p record things then... Not that you'd
> > care one whit, Res:-).
> >
> > Workload willing I might get it onto my (now) slightly strange
> > testbed... And will "update" my p record efforts on that sometime the
> > following days (for those who _do_ care:-).
> >
> > Cheers
>
> Ok i give up - whats a postfix P record? I cant really find any info on it
To support milters that add/delete or change headers and recipients,
Wietse added a few new record types for the queue file format. In 2.4
he also use them to do body edits. He seems to have liked the thought
that one shouldn't alter more than necessary, so instead of rewriting
everything when there wasn't enough space in the original message, he
made the p record... Which is a pointer type thing, that just denote
the position in the file to go to (after the original end of file
marker)... There can be multiple "forward" p rexords, but only one
"backward"/p record "chain".

Since we're not using the original queue file anyway, we're (or ... I
am ...:-) working on a semi'elegant (well, the elegance will probably
arrive with Jules having time to look it over:-) way to construct a p
record free queue file from the original. It's been tested for 2.3,
but there still is a less than elegant hurdle to jump when it comes to
2.4s body edits (and being sure one has read it all, without errors...
Or rather that the file has been completely written).
As it is now, one would have to at least "spin through" the body once
prior to actualy reading it... Or perhaps not... We will see when
Jules (or someone else:-) has the time to help out.
Any clearer?

Cheers
-- 
-- Glenn
email: glenn < dot > steen < at > gmail < dot > com
work: glenn < dot > steen < at > ap1 < dot > se