On 9/26/11 4:59 AM, David F. Skoll wrote: > On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 23:27:39 -0700 > Philip Prindeville <[email protected]> wrote: > >> It's been 2.5 years that we've been talking about how this feature >> needs to be implemented. Actually, it might be 3 already. I've lost >> track. > >> Is it ever going to happen? > > Probably not, since no-one else has asked for it. And I would rather > spend time on features lots of people want or features that > customers are paying for. > > Regards, > > David.
As I remember, a couple of other people did say having the port # would be useful to them as well. Plus it's useful for logging purposes. Or virtual hosting (i.e. your firewall does port forwarding to different daemons). Wasn't rewriting the way that queue-id's get assigned on the roadmap anyway? And isn't that the main impediment? It's hard to imagine this being a network application when it doesn't even allow access to the complete 5-tuple for logging and access control purposes. -Philip _______________________________________________ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list [email protected] http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
