That's fair enough, it's just as I'd written it I thought I'd pass the code on anyway and get opinion. We have to patch Exim for DSN anyway, so this isn't much more work on top for us.
-Andy- > -----Original Message----- > From: Philip Hazel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 07 December 2005 16:57 > To: Jakob Hirsch > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; exim-dev@exim.org > Subject: RE: [exim-dev] FW: Legacy EHLO AUTH responses (patch) 4.52 > > 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... :-) > -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
