On Wed, 7 Dec 2005, Jakob Hirsch wrote: > You wrote that the bogus authenticator didn't fix the behaviour, so this > wouldn't be a question of elegance. Applying non-trivial patches is far > less elegant than a little config change.
I suppose I'd better say that I am not in favour of putting what is quite a large amount of code into the main source, just to support a very few hosts that use a doubly non-standard facility that was standardized at least 6 years ago. A non-trivial amount of documentation would also be needed. I say "doubly non-standard" because what I might call "singly non-standard" hosts seem to be handled by the configuration hack, so the hosts causing the problem under discussion are (apparently) even more non-standard. Hmm. I wonder what units are used to measure non-standardness? There's a Christmas competition question for you... :-) -- Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714. Get the Exim 4 book: http://www.uit.co.uk/exim-book -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
