[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       tmda-workers
Subject:    Re: New tmda-pending action to go with "hold" filter action?
From:       Lloyd Zusman <ljz () asfast ! com>
Date:       2002-11-17 0:48:25
[Download RAW message or body]

"Jason R. Mastaler" <jason@mastaler.com> writes:

> [moving this to -workers]
>
> [ ... etc. ... ]
>
> I'm not following the logic here. By looking at the message you should
> be able to tell whether it is or isn't spam. Why would you need to
> trigger a confirmation request at that point?

Because there is a small subset of messages for which I cannot tell
whether or not they are spam.  Only by triggering a confirmation can I
be sure.

Admittedly, this doesn't happen often, but it has occurred more than
once over the past few months.


>> If number 3 is not currently possible, what are the chances of yet
>> another option being added to the interactive version of
>> tmda-pending, so that I can choose to cause a confirmation request
>> to be sent to the original source of the message?
>
> I don't think will be very easy, because once the message is written
> to disk, the important environment variables such as EXTENSION,
> RECIPIENT and SENDER are lost. TMDA doesn't current store these
> anywhere. Because so much of the confirmation request code is in
> tmda-rfilter instead of a shared module (where it probably should be),
> quite a bit of internal reorganization would also have to be done.

Well, given that this isn't too easy to implement, I can live without
it.  Like I mentioned, the case I'm talking about only occurs once in a
while.

-- 
 Lloyd Zusman
 ljz@asfast.com
 God bless you.
_________________________________________________
tmda-workers mailing list (tmda-workers@tmda.net)
http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-workers
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]