[Imapfilter-devel] Patch to build imapfilter on Windows

[Danilo Almeida]

> 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 think it is better to try to keep support for multiple platforms in
the main distribution as long as it does not have a significant
negative impact in the main development.

Maintaining separate ports also generally takes more overhead work on
the part of the port maintainer.  It can also result in more forking,
which just makes life more complicated for end users.  It is very
useful to just be able to tell users to get Foo version X instead of
get Joe's BazOS port of Foo version X (assuming that Joe managed to
update his version X-1 port to version X).

If you look at things like Emacs, OpenSSL, and others, the trend is to
include a wide range of platform support (including Windows support)
into the mainline.  However, to be able to do that, you do have to
have enough of a developer base actively working on the set of
supported platforms.  If there is not enough interest in a particular
platform (i.e., no developers wanting to maintain it), the support for
that platform can always be dropped.

> 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.

Cool.

- Danilo


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