On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Considering that RFC 2821 allows 512-character lines, wrapping at around 80 > characters doesn't seem really necessary.
Exactly. It is done for human readability. After all, that's the whole idea of these messages - though we all know users don't actually read them. :-) > 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. They aren't all completely admin-specified messages: some may contain inserted Exim error texts, etc. This wrapping was introduced by request, IIRC. > 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(). Quite. > Which of my remarks did you construe as doubts regarding the interaction > between ACLs and smtp_respond()? The one about not being sure of catching all cases. -- 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/ ##
