On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Jakob Hirsch wrote:
> That should actually work. I don't mean to bother you, but are you not
> concerned that such an incompatible change could probably many others?
I am less concerned about incompatible changes that fix obvious bugs
when compared with the documentation than I am about "real" incompatible
changes, which I try to avoid if at all possible.
I am also not convinced that many others will be using existing
configurations that expect {} to be the same as {0}. Of course I may be
wrong - we are both just guessing here!
I suppose I could add something to README.UPDATING, which everybody is
supposed to read when they upgrade...
> Something else... since the upgrade, this appears sporadically in my
> spamd log:
>
> > spamd: bad protocol: header error: (Content-Length mismatch: Expected 0
> > bytes, got 44 bytes)
> and, as a consequence, in the exim log:
> > spam acl condition: cannot parse spamd output
>
> Needless to say, the message has more than 0 bytes. That's most probably
> related to the changes in spool_mbox.c. Nico?
I did take a brief look at Nico's patch, but not in detail, as I trust
Nico. Are you there Nico?
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service
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/ ##
