------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
http://www.exim.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=455 ------- Comment #6 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-05 16:04 ------- Regarding (a): It's true that it changes the semantics of smtp_respond(), but I thought that smtp_respond() is the right level to do the wrapping on. *If* the wrapping is something necessitated by the SMTP protocol, that is. Considering that RFC 2821 allows 512-character lines, wrapping at around 80 characters doesn't seem really necessary. But in that case there shouldn't be any automatic wrapping at all; the admin should make sure that any customized messages have line breaks where he wants them. The same goes for (b): if the wrapping is SMTP specific, then of course messages from acl_not_smtp or batched SMTP are of no concern (and those messages would better be wrapped to $COLUMNS). But if the wrapping is where it is because it is generally a good idea to keep individual lines of text shorter than 80 characters, independently of the protocol, then it is wrong to put the wrapping in smtp_respond(). Which of my remarks did you construe as doubts regarding the interaction between ACLs and smtp_respond()? -- Configure bugmail: http://www.exim.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
