PF2.4 support - was Re: feature request: compress attachments

[Glenn Steen]

On 25/05/07, Julian Field <MailScanner at ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Glenn Steen wrote:
> > On 24/05/07, Glenn Steen <glenn.steen at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 24/05/07, Julian Field <MailScanner at ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> > Hash: SHA1
> >> >
> >> > Glen,
> >> >
> >> > My brain is not well enough to get my head round this stuff. It's all
> >> > washing in through my eyes and straight out of my ears unfortunately.
> >> >
> >> > Is there any chance you could find time to implement the 2.4
> >> support as
> >> > you say you already have an idea how to do it anyway please?
> >> >
> >> > Once you're convinced it works, I'll then just adopt your patches.
> >> >
> >> > Sorry, I'm just not up to doing this myself, but would very much
> >> like to
> >> > get full PF support in as soon as possible.
> >> >
> >> > If you can generate a few test messages for me, I'll then test your
> >> code
> >> > and hopefully start to gain a bit of insight into how it works.
> >> >
> >> > Many thanks,
> >> > Jules.
> >>
> >> I'll see what I can do... The problem is testing it all... Very
> >> timeconsuming.
> >> I found the first draft for 2.4 support, but ... it needs testing...
> >> I'll see what I can do, perhaps this weekend.
> >>
> >
> > Ok, found some time right now... I've tested this mainly with
> > handcrafted queue files, and in my production (which does not use a
> > body editing/replacing milter...), without any discernible bad effect.
> > There is a price though, since we exchange a nice/fast seek with a
> > semi-convoluted loop.
> >
> > The code is ugly, and could well bear with some constructive
> > critisism... and if some sharp (postmix-friendly:-) minds like Dhawal,
> > Drew, Joshua, Phil (Uxbod) or Gerhard could find some time to
> > test/read/verify both the thinking and code, that would be much
> > appreciated. Even some non-postfix-liking minds would be very much
> > appreciated (That means you, oh evil bunny;-).
> > It should be good enough for a beta:-). So if you feel up to it, and
> > don't think it too massive a thing Jules...:-)
> That's just what I wanted, many thanks.
> I'll put out a beta in a bit with this in it.
> I assume this patch includes your previous patch, and is directly
> applicable to the main MailScanner source.

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