Philip Hazel wrote: > On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Daniel Tiefnig wrote: >> Sounds reasonable, as supporting empty gecos fields could be a lot >> of work. > > Took about 15 minutes. :-)
Oh. Well, I said: "could". :o) > What I have done is to detect the specific case of an empty gecos > field, and then edit the *saved* file, Ah, I didn't want to do that, as it is not reversible. I rather thought of adding additional files with a .nogecos suffix or something. > to remove instances of " CALLER_NAME" before doing the comparison. That will not be sufficient, as you will also have to remove some angel brackets at least. (s/CALLER_NAME <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/) Don't forget here you're using different domains. (test.ex, myhost.test.ex, myhost.ex) In logfiles there are also CALLER_NAMEs after non-whitespace characters, i.e.: "name=CALLER_NAME" and "=> >CALLER_NAME"... > I think this will work - no doubt you will test it when I next update > the tests. I'll have to think about that. :o) lg, daniel -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
