On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Chris Lear wrote: > So the error is misleading only in as much as it says there's been a > "violation" when perhaps there's only been an infringement that nobody > really has a good name for [implementation that doesn't quite do what it > SHOULD?].
Quite. > It's nitpicking to object to the wording of the error. And it's probably > nitpicking to say that the RFC is internally inconsistent. But my guess > is that the subscribers to this list like a good nitpick more than the > average non-RFC-obsessive. I certainly do. Sigh. :-) Suggest me some wording, and I'll change it. -- Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714. Get the Exim 4 book: http://www.uit.co.uk/exim-book -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
