[hashcash] Re: [kloecker@kde.org: [Bug 78816] Hashcash support for Kmail]
- From: Adam Back <adam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: hashcash@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 09:29:14 -0400
I think the chances of someone installing a 3rd plugin are much lower
than enabling a tick box in built-in spam/prevention mail reliability
stamp dialog. So for hashcash deployment builtin I presume would be
way better.
Adam
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 09:25:28AM -0400, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
> Adam Back wrote:
>
> >Any dissent, send it to the bug url:
> >
> >http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=78816
>
> on one hand, if they are putting in a general-purpose filtering system,
> then yes it does not make any sense to add a hashcash specific
> extension. If on the other hand, the goal is to make something easily
> available and always there, then hashcash specific code should be present.
>
> what's the goal?
- References:
- [hashcash] [kloecker@kde.org: [Bug 78816] Hashcash support for Kmail]
- From: Adam Back
- [hashcash] Re: [kloecker@kde.org: [Bug 78816] Hashcash support for Kmail]
- From: Eric S. Johansson
Other related posts:
- » [hashcash] [kloecker@kde.org: [Bug 78816] Hashcash support for Kmail]
- » [hashcash] Re: [kloecker@kde.org: [Bug 78816] Hashcash support for Kmail]
- » [hashcash] Re: [kloecker@kde.org: [Bug 78816] Hashcash support for Kmail]
- » [hashcash] Re: [kloecker@kde.org: [Bug 78816] Hashcash support for Kmail]
- [hashcash] [kloecker@kde.org: [Bug 78816] Hashcash support for Kmail]
- From: Adam Back
- [hashcash] Re: [kloecker@kde.org: [Bug 78816] Hashcash support for Kmail]
- From: Eric S. Johansson