W B Hacker wrote: >>> Inserting one line of code: >>> >>> sender_host_name = sender_host_address; >>> >>> ... to utilize existing variables might be the mark of a Hacker (hey it >>> IS my 'real name') >> It wouldn't be compatible with peoples configs. You'd need to have a new >> variable. Something like $sender_host_ptr. However, why bother writing >> new code and adding further config options when the capability already >> exists in dnsdb. Feels like bloat to me. > > One line with "<variable> = <value>" isn't a whole lot of 'new code', > actually.
It's more code than removing a '#' from a makefile. It's also more documentation and more stuff for people to learn. It's feature bloat. >>> ..But is 'lighter' than having to build dnsdb just to see if a PTR RR >>> 'exists'. > > I'm still waiting for someone to weigh-in with something dnsdb does that has > a > bit more utility - or at least is harder to substitute for. 1.) A plain PTR lookup without the equivalent forward lookup. 2.) Checking whether or not an SPF record exists for a domain 3.) Setting $smtp_active_hostname to the PTR record for $interface_address 4.) Querying the TOR exit node list 5.) Querying an "emailbl" such as the one described here: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200904.mbox/%[email protected]%3e 6.) Checking how many MX records a domain has 7.) Checking if a domain name has NS servers or not 8.) Checking if the NS servers for a domain are listed on some DNS based BL 9.) Automatically checking if the connecting host has connected to the primary MX or secondary MX for the domain it is attempting to deliver mail to. There are literally hundreds of use cases, but I can't be bothered to spend more than a minute thinking of examples because I know you'll just go through them all pretending that there are alternative ways of doing it whilst ignoring the real issue here which is, dnsdb is flexible to do almost anything you can imagine with DNS, without having to add hundreds of different configuration options to Exim to do the same thing. >> By your definition of, "lighter," yes. >> > > Well.. the Exim 4.69-3 binary here is about 740KBytes -DWITH_PGSQL. *Nobody* cares about the 4KB increase in file size. Not even you. You're just clinging on to this argument because it's one of the few that you have. >> It seems that everybody so far has disagreed with you. > > ACK. The *ratio* looks overwhelming. > > But does that mean we have now heard from all five who want dnsdb in the > default? Or was it four? > > Is the tail wagging the dog? > > Or do the majority simply have simpler ways of getting the job done and not > really care? I'd suggest that if anybody agreed with you, at least one person would have said by now. On that note, I'm satisfied that the archives and the wishlist item show there is support for this idea, and I'm not going to discuss this any further with you as it's quite clearly a pointless exercise. >> I'd suggest you >> add your negative vote to the whishlist item, but that doesn't look >> possible unfortunately. > > Done. Some time ago. > > BTW - personally it affects me not. > > I've shifted to use of a customized build anyway. So have I. That's irrelevant to the discussion. I'm arguing for the change for the benefit of the Exim community, you're just arguing about your own personal systems and personal preferences. -- Mike Cardwell (https://secure.grepular.com/) (http://perlcv.com/) -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
