Tony Finch wrote: > On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, W B Hacker wrote: > >>>Urgh, yuck. Why not use an ACL variable? >> >>Simple reason here was that we don't have any left to spare. ;-) >>(unless Phil bumped from 0-9 to 0-99 when I wasn't looking...) > > > ChangeLog for version 4.61: > > PH/06 Increased the number of ACL variables to 20 of each type, and arranged > for visible compile-time settings that can be used to change these > numbers, for those that want even more. Backwards compatibility with old > spool files has been maintained. However, going back to a previous Exim > release will lost any variables that are in spool files. > >
Great! Thanks! Too busy to upgrade before I swapped continents for the summer, but now on the agenda soon as I'm back in Hong Kong. >>In any case, what would it gain, code-wise? > > > It's ugly to mess around with the message header in order to implement > envelope-level logic. > No argument on that generalization. Now how does an acl_m variable - not turned into a header - help determine, two days after the fact when the user is bitching, whether a given message was/was not, should have been - so flagged AND correctly actioned? Not that this is the only reason, but if headers are not of more value than ephemeral variables in after-action analysis, visible to others besides the admin, even - why then does sesame.csx.cam.ac.uk add so very many of them for this mailing list? ;-) Bill -- ## 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/
