anomy-list

Re: RE: did i ask a daft question?

From: Bjarni R. Einarsson (11146@xyz.molar.is)
Date: Mán 19 Feb 2001 - 23:31:51 UTC

  • Next message: Roberto Maximus: "installing anomy"

    On 2001-02-13, 17:28:32 (+0100), Tom Staels wrote:
    >
    > First off, I want to make clear that I fully agree with your position on
    > changeing the message structure.
    > Also, now I (mostly) understand why Anomy (& Outlook) are treating the log
    > in this way.
    >
    > My thought on the issue : you've said it yourself, the solution is implied
    > in the 'problem'.
    > Those that want to use the inline log, should be warned that the message
    > structure will be changed to multipart/mixed. It seems like the 'only' way
    > to make sure the log will be visible upon arrival at client.
    >
    > Just a loose thought...could anomy not sent it's log in a separate
    > message?...

    Yes - this could probably be implemented from within procmail
    (assuming procmail is wrapping the sanitizer) by using feat_log_stderr
    instead of feat_log_inline, catching stderr and building a seperate
    message from that. This strikes me as a somewhat ugly solution
    though. :-)

    -- 
    Bjarni R. Einarsson                           PGP: 02764305, B7A3AB89
     11146@xyz.molar.is                -><-              http://bre.klaki.net/
    

    Check out my open-source email sanitizer: http://mailtools.anomy.net/



    hosted by molar.is