On 2018-12-20 at 20:50 +0000, Jeremy Harris via Exim-dev wrote:
> The wording "should be" could be relaxed slightly, maybe, since it isn't
> required by Exim's parsing.  "It is simplest to", perhaps?

Didn't we used to require it?  I forget.  Feel free to update it.

> I see you quietly removed prdr.  Has it been seen to cause problems?

No: I removed a documentation claim which was false.

The spec.xfpt doc claimed that the configure.default file included
"hosts_try_prdr = *" on the remote_smtp Transport.  That was not
present.  I can find no evidence that it has ever been present.
(`git log --patch src/src/configure.default` and search for
`hosts_try_prdr`)

So I made the documentation consistent with reality.

If you want PRDR in the default config, talk with Heiko then go ahead
and add it, to the config and the docs both?

> On multi_domain - some really stupid hosts (hi, Google!) can't handle
> it, and will _always_ temp-reject any RCPT after the first domain
> (G gives an explicit text error saying it can't hack it).

Might be worth calling out in a comment?  Or comment-out the directive
and include it as a suggestion for "If your smarthost is able to do so."

I thought, but could well be wrong, that Google did as you say for their
listening MX services, but not for Submission services.  For MX, it
makes some sense when you have per-domain policies on spam-handling and
no good way to handle (without PRDR) what should be done there.  For
Submission, enforcing a single domain per message strikes me as ...
Quirky.  At best.

-Phil

-- 
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim 
details at http://www.exim.org/ ##

Reply via email to