[Imapfilter-devel] Patch to build imapfilter on Windows

[Lefteris Chatzibarbas]

On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 03:30:21PM -0500, Danilo Almeida wrote:
> I can understand your concerns in terms of maintaining the codebase, but
> do you foresee a lot of overhead in trying to keep additional OS support
> in imapfilter?  It is a relatively simple codebase, so I don't foresee a
> lot of portability issues.  I know I would love to see imapfilter widely
> used.  I actually have access to a wide range of Unix platforms in
> addition to Windows, and am willing to volunteer to test on various
> platforms.

No, I don't, really, see any major portability issues.  I just think that
it is a better idea to to keep ports separate from the main distribution
and whoever maintains a port makes the necessary changes and releases
binaries and source of the port.  It seems to me that it simplifies things
but I may be wrong.  What do you think?

> I'm certainly interested in maintaining a Win32 port as I'm planning on
> transitioning to imapfilter for my IMAP filtering needs.

That would be very useful, so AFAIC, you are the maintainer of imapfilter's
win32 port.

> FYI, I am working on SASL support for imapfilter.  At MIT, our IMAP
> server support authentication only through SSL or Kerberos (via SASL).
> Since we do not want our users storing their passwords in config files,
> I need the SASL support.  Once that is done, I plan to submit the
> patches and install imapfilter centrally at MIT for our various Unix
> platforms (mostly Linux, Solaris, and Irix, though I may build for
> others).

That's interesting because support for other authentication methods
(Kerberos, GSSAPI, etc.) is something that imapfilter lacks (hopefully
only for now).

> (At one point, I had been thinking of modifying imapfilter so that it
> can prompt for a password so that users do not have to store the
> password in a config file.  However, I was not sure that people would
> like that feature.  The SASL support was what a really wanted, so I
> chose not to pursue prompting for passwords.)

The CVS version of imapfilter prompts for a password, if one not specified,
in the config file.  I have also added support for password encryption, so
the user will not have to store passwords in plain.   His/her mailserver
accounts' passwords are encrypted using a master password as a key.

Lefteris

_______________________________________________
Imapfilter-devel mailing list
Imapfilter-devel at lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/imapfilter-devel