--On 20 January 2011 22:07:33 -0800 Claus Assmann <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Don't hold your breath while waiting... > > I don't need too, I already implemented it in one MTA, and if I > had the time, I could put it into another "main stream" MTA. Given that Exim has significant market share, I for one would welcome that feature. Which MTA is it that implements the feature? <http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/man.200912/mxsurvey.html> An alternative to implementing PRDR would be to use an SMTP verb that changes the session to an LMTP session. I'd use "LMTP" as the verb. That would permit better code reuse, and would avoid the need for administrators to learn the differences between LMTP and PRDR (PRDR adds a "final response code", which seems redundant to me). Otherwise, it's pretty similar. -- Ian Eiloart IT Services, University of Sussex 01273-873148 x3148 For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/ -- ## 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/
