From: (no name) (no email)
Date: Fri Feb 20 2004 - 14:56:36 EST
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Wietse Venema wrote:
> This discussion is more work than implementing a null mailer...
>
> If "discard" is the the commonly used name, then "discard" it will be.
>
This is a bit too concise. I agree there is not much to discuss here, but
I want to make sure we have agreed on something specific. I am inclined to
guess that the above means you have no objects to the contribution of a
new "discard" mailer sharing most of its code with "error". It could also
mean that you are accepting the original patch with the hard-coded
"discard" service name for the error mailer, but that seems less likely.
Finally, will it save you more time if I let you build it yourself! :-)
(If not I will contribute a patch along the lines of the most recently
described design with the separate main shells around common code for
"error" and "discard").
-- Viktor.
|
|
|