------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1290 Summary: 10.13 + 42.24: A patch for two minor, cosmetic, bugs. Product: Exim Version: 4.80 Platform: Other URL: http://git.exim.org/exim.git/blob_plain/HEAD:/doc/doc- docbook/spec.xfpt OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: bug Priority: low Component: Documentation AssignedTo: [email protected] ReportedBy: [email protected] CC: [email protected] A patch for two minor, cosmetic, bugs. As I am not familiar with the language, I am only guessing. 1. As far as I can see, the first patch fixes the expression as described in the section 10.11 above. Which looks to me non grammatically correct. Could it be that the editor thought about the title, rather then &<<SECThoslispatip>>& ? 2. I think the format of the similar expressions in that section excludes the single blank character in hosts = < host list> , the one in '< h'. --- a/spec.xfpt 2012-08-24 21:35:19.000000000 +0300 +++ b/spec.xfpt 2012-08-25 00:29:51.000000000 +0300 @@ -8144,7 +8144,7 @@ case the IP address is used on its own. There are several types of pattern that require Exim to know the name of the remote host. These are either wildcard patterns or lookups by name. (If a complete hostname is given without any wildcarding, it is used to find an IP -address to match against, as described in the section &<<SECThoslispatip>>& +address to match against, as described in section &<<SECThoslispatip>>& above.) If the remote host name is not already known when Exim encounters one of these @@ -27563,7 +27563,7 @@ encrypted = * .endd -.vitem &*hosts&~=&~*&<&'&~host&~list'&> +.vitem &*hosts&~=&~*&<&'host&~list'&> .cindex "&%hosts%& ACL condition" .cindex "host" "ACL checking" .cindex "&ACL;" "testing the client host" -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.exim.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email -- ## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
