On 2010-09-02 at 22:30 +0200, Heiko Schlittermann wrote: > Phil Pennock <[email protected]> (Do 02 Sep 2010 07:13:12 CEST): > > Or perhaps "only booleans which are somehow intrinsic to the meaning are > > not expanded"? > > What is "somehow". I'd say, only if there is a very technical reason not > to expand, than no expansion should an can be done…
I think that the consequences of having "unseen", aka "seen = no" be expanded, are difficult to predict and likely to lead to debugging hell. Of course, that could be said of any option, it's all a question of degree. So while I think that "everything" is probably right, I offered another approach for people to consider too. -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
