On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 09:20:15AM +0100, Philip Hazel wrote: > On Sun, 9 Jul 2006, Robert Millan wrote: > > > Ok, I think I got it right now. I implemented smtp_code support in routers > > and > > sent an update of my previous patch. Please check it out: > > > > http://www.exim.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115 > > I started looking at your (previous) patch at end of last week, and > should be able to do some more on it this week (next week is the Exim > course). I was torn between using a new option smtp_code, as you did, > and allowing the user to put codes at the start of the message. That is, > the choice between: > > message = your message here > smtp_code = 599 > > and > > message = 599 your message here > > The point I want to think about is extended status codes, which some > people want. If you want something like > > message = 599 1.2.3 your message here > > then the whole "code" is a string rather than a number, and there seems > little point in having two different strings - why not just use one. > (And even when there is no extended status, it has to end up as a > string, after all.)
The only drawback I can think of is backwards compatibility. Either we drop it, or we have to add a kludge to prepend the old string with the code. > I now need to look at your router code and see whether this adds > anything to the background. Then I'll make a decision... Ok. Please keep me informed. Thanks, -- Robert Millan My spam trap is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note: this address is only intended for spam harvesters. Writing to it will get you added to my black list. -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
