>I can understand your point of view, but it will not change my stance.
not a problem. I'll ask you to think carefully the actual downside of incorporating the option for relaxing RFC compliance versus the value of said options to the open source community. What is the real downside? >What I can offer you as some kind of consolation is an idea about a simple >preprocessor that filters out the illegal "control:" lines > perl -i -p -0040 -e 's/\n //' < RFC-VIOLATING-FILE \ > | grep -vi ^control: > RFC-CONFORMING-FILE >[the first command is required to unwrap the wrapped lines] >Alternatively you may add a > changetype: add line >after each unwrapped dn: line. all very good suggestions, thanks for offering them. I'm dealing with 1G+ LDIFs, and the patch *is* cleaner for me, but preprocessing will work. >Please at least report it to them as a bug in their tool (even if they might >not react). Maybe they are not even aware of the issue. If I put the bug report in, will you incorporate the patch? :)
