--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=816
--- Comment #3 from Phil Pennock p...@exim.org 2010-06-07 08:11:32 ---
There's a possible future enhancement, which I'm more and more thinking will be
necessary
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=816
Phil Pennock p...@exim.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|Exim 4.72 |Exim 4.73
Phil Pennock p...@exim.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||p
Folks,
I've committed changes which allow Routers to have multiple condition
options. As part of making this as simple as possible, I've added a new
expansion condition, bool_lax{}. It's much like bool{}, but input which
would cause bool{} to fail expansion cause bool_lax{} to return true.
On 2010-06-07 at 08:53 -0400, John Jetmore wrote:
The machine I've been using to work on the test suite is a RHEL 4
machine. I tried to build from HEAD this morning to see what havoc
Phil wrought on the rules but I can't get past buildconfig. It
compiles but segfaults when running. I tried
On 2010-06-07 at 08:53 -0400, John Jetmore wrote:
The machine I've been using to work on the test suite is a RHEL 4
machine. I tried to build from HEAD this morning to see what havoc
Phil wrought on the rules but I can't get past buildconfig. It
compiles but segfaults when running. I tried
On 2010-06-07 at 14:12 -0400, John Jetmore wrote:
You can make an argument that this is an old server, but I have
current versions of Exim running on Solaris 2.6 (was 2.5 until a year
or so ago), and I'm willing to be I'm not a winner in the running
Exim on the oldest platform contest.
I
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=926
Phil Pennock p...@exim.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|Exim 4.72 |Exim 4.73
Phil Pennock p...@exim.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||p
Target Milestone|Exim 4.72 |Exim 4.73
Phil Pennock p...@exim.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||p
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=994
Phil Pennock p...@exim.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|Exim 4.72 |Exim 4.73
Phil Pennock p...@exim.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||p
Target Milestone|Exim 4.72 |Exim 4.73
Phil Pennock p...@exim.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||p
Target Milestone|Exim 4.72 |Exim 4.73
Phil Pennock p...@exim.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|ni...@exim.org |p
Target Milestone|Exim 4.72 |Exim 4.73
Phil Pennock p...@exim.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||p
Target Milestone|Exim 4.72 |Exim 4.73
Phil Pennock p...@exim.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||p
Target Milestone|Exim 4.72 |Exim 4.73
Phil Pennock p...@exim.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|ni...@exim.org |p
Target Milestone|Exim 4.72 |Exim 4.73
Phil Pennock p...@exim.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|ni...@exim.org |p
Target Milestone|Exim 4.72 |Exim 4.73
Phil Pennock p...@exim.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||p
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=922
--- Comment #3 from Phil Pennock p...@exim.org 2010-06-06 02:36:47 ---
John, I started applying the patch manually because of adjustments in spec.xfpt
and kept
Target Milestone|Exim 4.72 |Exim 4.73
Phil Pennock p...@exim.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||p
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=937
Phil Pennock p...@exim.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=834
Phil Pennock p...@exim.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|Exim 4.72 |Exim 4.73
Phil Pennock p...@exim.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|Exim 4.72 |Exim 4.73
Phil Pennock p...@exim.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||p
Target Milestone|Exim 4.72 |Exim 4.73
Phil Pennock p...@exim.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|ni...@exim.org |j
Target Milestone|Exim 4.72 |Exim 4.73
Phil Pennock p...@exim.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||p
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=995
Phil Pennock p...@exim.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|Exim 4.72 |Exim 4.73
Phil Pennock p...@exim.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||p
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=992
Phil Pennock exim-...@spodhuis.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
On 2010-05-31 at 21:24 -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
I'd like the recursion limit raised from 20 to 50 by default if there's
no objections. Thanks in advance.
I object. No argument has been provided for why this is needed, except
by you, and your mechanism is fundamentally unsafe. All that's
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=967
Phil Pennock exim-...@spodhuis.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
On 2010-05-28 at 14:06 -0400, Dan Rosenberg wrote:
Good to hear Exim may continue to be developed after all. What does
this mean in regards to fixing these particular issues? Will you have
time after this week to work on a fix? Should I bother waiting, or
should I just release an advisory
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=972
--- Comment #1 from Phil Pennock exim-...@spodhuis.org 2010-04-07 01:53:44
---
Is this in a cluster environment, with shared storage?
If so, have you set
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=971
Phil Pennock exim-...@spodhuis.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
On 2010-03-19 at 10:07 +0100, Sven Hartge wrote:
On 27.02.2010 00:52, Phil Pennock wrote:
Perhaps the best solution is to add a new pseudo search type for dnsdb,
just as there's csa, mxh and zns. Call the new one txtconcat.
Revert to the previous behaviour for txt, have dnsdb use txtconcat
On 2010-02-26 at 20:10 +0100, Sven Hartge wrote:
The lookup from the command line returns three results which in 4.69 were
concatenated with \n.
o...@skuld:~$ host -t txt 189.14.63.186.asn.fh-giessen.de
189.14.63.186.asn.fh-giessen.de descriptive text 22927 186.60.0.0 14
I suspect the
On 2010-02-27 at 02:58 +0100, Sven Hartge wrote:
On 27.02.2010 00:52, Phil Pennock wrote:
Perhaps the best solution is to add a new pseudo search type for dnsdb,
just as there's csa, mxh and zns. Call the new one txtconcat.
Revert to the previous behaviour for txt, have dnsdb use txtconcat
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=956
--- Comment #1 from Phil Pennock exim-...@spodhuis.org 2010-01-25 21:20:55
---
Beware, here lies the potential for major chaos.
The spam-scanning server code
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=937
Summary: Ability to enable debugging from an ACL
Product: Exim
Version: N/A
Platform: Other
OS/Version: Linux
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=917
--- Comment #1 from Phil Pennock exim-...@spodhuis.org 2009-12-19 11:13:37
---
Created an attachment (id=370)
-- (http://bugs.exim.org/attachment.cgi?id=370
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=926
--- Comment #6 from Phil Pennock exim-...@spodhuis.org 2009-12-14 11:01:01
---
Created an attachment (id=362)
-- (http://bugs.exim.org/attachment.cgi?id=362
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=926
--- Comment #9 from Phil Pennock exim-...@spodhuis.org 2009-12-14 11:24:38
---
Created an attachment (id=363)
-- (http://bugs.exim.org/attachment.cgi?id=363
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=926
--- Comment #10 from Phil Pennock exim-...@spodhuis.org 2009-12-14 11:38:19
---
Suggested NewStuff phrasing for 4.72:
1. The ClamAV support has been upgraded
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=927
--- Comment #12 from Phil Pennock exim-...@spodhuis.org 2009-12-10 23:55:12
---
@Andreas ~#11:
So there are two patches, the second marked the first obsolete
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=926
--- Comment #3 from Phil Pennock exim-...@spodhuis.org 2009-12-05 09:40:21
---
It works for me. I just tested it.
Code went in with revision 1.4 of malware.c
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=927
Phil Pennock exim-...@spodhuis.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
On 2009-12-04 at 09:36 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 00:11 -0800, Phil Pennock wrote:
bignum.h, line 58: error #3089: there is no type with the width
specified
typedef unsigned int t_dbl __attribute__((mode(TI
On 2009-12-01 at 11:31 +0100, V. T. Mueller, Continum wrote:
does that mean that AIX/HP-UX/Solaris users with their vendor's
compilers will get stuck on this point?
Yes. It's a goof.
The solution is easy: when Release Candidates (RCs) are announced, try
to build them! You don't need to
On 2009-11-30 at 15:41 +0100, Marc Beyer wrote:
I'm getting a compilation failure for the last two versions of exim
under HP-UX, the error is:
gmake[2]: Entering directory
`/var/tmp/eximtest/exim-4.71/build-HP-UX-ia64/pdkim'
cc base64.c
cc bignum.c
bignum.h, line 58: error #3089: there is
On 2009-11-20 at 10:59 +, Graeme Fowler wrote:
On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 10:54 +, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
Anyone else want to speak up for it... it is pretty small in both effect
and implementation.
For inclusion by default? Yes please.
:)
The additional parts of that bug are
NewStuff is somewhat bare in the 4.70 release. I see from CVS that the
solution chosen is to expand the 4.70 section when 4.71 comes out.
I worked through ChangeLog and the patches which, in addition, I know
went in -- but that latter category is strongly biased towards patches I
wrote. This
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=722
--- Comment #12 from Phil Pennock exim-...@spodhuis.org 2009-11-16 13:34:06
---
Created an attachment (id=348)
-- (http://bugs.exim.org/attachment.cgi?id=348
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=722
Phil Pennock exim-...@spodhuis.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=722
--- Comment #14 from Phil Pennock exim-...@spodhuis.org 2009-11-16 14:06:31
---
Created an attachment (id=351)
-- (http://bugs.exim.org/attachment.cgi?id=351
So, before I can declare that my domain signs *all* mail with DKIM, how
do I deal with things like, oh, the Exim Bugzilla which sends mail from
the sign-up address, ie my own domain?
Ta,
-Phil
--
## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details
at
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=674
--- Comment #22 from Phil Pennock exim-...@spodhuis.org 2009-10-19 01:30:13
---
Re OPENSSL_NO_SHA256 -- current code within OpenSSL can use it, because current
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=674
--- Comment #18 from Phil Pennock exim-...@spodhuis.org 2009-10-16 12:23:40
---
Created an attachment (id=330)
-- (http://bugs.exim.org/attachment.cgi?id=330
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=674
--- Comment #20 from Phil Pennock exim-...@spodhuis.org 2009-10-17 02:28:46
---
I suck.
The description I wrote was = 0.9.8 but the ifdef I wrote was 0.9.8
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=665
--- Comment #8 from Phil Pennock exim-...@spodhuis.org 2009-09-28 00:41:14
---
Amir, the fix is in the patch which is attached to this bug. It needs an
#ifdef
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=887
Summary: Spec could better call out AUTH PLAIN parameters
Product: Exim
Version: N/A
Platform: Other
OS/Version:
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=887
--- Comment #1 from Phil Pennock exim-...@spodhuis.org 2009-09-09 00:29:15
---
Created an attachment (id=326)
-- (http://bugs.exim.org/attachment.cgi?id=326
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=882
Phil Pennock exim-...@spodhuis.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=871
Summary: Exim mis-uses db1.x API by assuming constant values
Product: Exim
Version: N/A
Platform: Other
OS/Version:
On 2009-07-28 at 22:26 +0200, MarkdV wrote:
Just playing, when I ran into:
# exim -d+resolver -be
${lookup dnsdb{txt=_spf.google.com}}
database lookup required for txt=_spf.google.com
dnsdb key: _spf.google.com
DNS name syntax check failed: _spf.google.com (TXT)
lookup failed
My
On 2009-06-28 at 17:31 +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
src/dcch.* just says License: GPL without noting the specific
version of the license.
I have asked Wolfgang Breyha for clarification and he said the
standard exim license terms (GPLV2+ with OpenSSL exception) are ok.
Any idea what
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=674
--- Comment #16 from Phil Pennock exim-...@spodhuis.org 2009-06-16 00:19:44
---
The OpenSSL developers have a different view of abstraction and where
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=847
--- Comment #1 from Phil Pennock exim-...@spodhuis.org 2009-05-27 22:39:34
---
Exim generally provides clean and simple ways of doing things but enough
On 2009-05-10 at 23:59 +0200, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
On torsdagen den 5 februari 2009, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
So my inclination is:-
1. Get the old snapshots deleted (they are confusing)
2. Hunt down and change documentation referring to them
3. Publicise anonymous CVS
I
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=834
Summary: Add permit_coredump option to pipe transport
Product: Exim
Version: 4.69
Platform: Other
OS/Version: Linux
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=834
--- Comment #1 from Phil Pennock exim-...@spodhuis.org 2009-03-31 19:48:16
---
Created an attachment (id=310)
-- (http://bugs.exim.org/attachment.cgi?id=310
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=818
Phil Pennock exim-...@spodhuis.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Hi Steffen,
On 2009-01-24 at 17:45 -0800, Phil Pennock wrote:
On 2009-01-24 at 13:06 +0100, Steffen Heil wrote:
I am having problems using a .net client and exim as smtp server trying to
do ntlm authentication.
The NTLM-SMTP Extension requires servers to accept two different protocol
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=771
Phil Pennock [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=167
--- Comment #22 from Phil Pennock [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-28 12:11:32 ---
Created an attachment (id=275)
-- (http://bugs.exim.org/attachment.cgi?id=275
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=765
--- Comment #1 from Phil Pennock [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-28 11:40:19 ---
Created an attachment (id=274)
-- (http://bugs.exim.org/attachment.cgi?id=274
On 2008-09-26 at 21:19 +1000, Ted Cooper wrote:
Phil Pennock wrote:
On 2008-09-26 at 03:12 -0700, Phil Pennock wrote:
FWIW, and this is likely *not* the cause of your ALRM problems, it
appears that there's an undocumented (but intuitively sensible, if you
think about it) constraint
[ bcc'd the -dev list, to let discussion fork ]
On 2008-09-25 at 16:53 -0400, Chris Zimmerman wrote:
rim_bis_notifier_virtual_user:
driver = pipe
headers_only
command = /usr/local/cpanel/bin/rim_bis_notifier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
user = ${lookup{$domain}lsearch*
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=167
--- Comment #20 from Phil Pennock [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-17 01:30:32 ---
Jakob: bool{$whatever} is not new syntax, merely a new conditional operator.
Now
On 2008-09-17 at 17:55 +0200, Florian Lagg wrote:
PROBLEM:
I have to implement some kind of logging to fulfil the law about data
retention beginning on 01.01.2009. I could code a solution which pharses the
mainlog using regexp. This has some disadvantages:
- Problems with log rotating
Embed
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=167
--- Comment #17 from Phil Pennock [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-16 00:20:09 ---
(In reply to comment #16)
What do you think of wrapping the generic condition in bare
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=167
Phil Pennock [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=167
Phil Pennock [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=167
--- Comment #12 from Phil Pennock [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-12 11:28:38 ---
Created an attachment (id=271)
-- (http://bugs.exim.org/attachment.cgi?id=271)
Adds
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=749
--- Comment #6 from Phil Pennock [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-18 20:51:29 ---
I haven't tested to see what expand_string() does when passed a non-NULL string
of 0
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=749
--- Comment #1 from Phil Pennock [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-17 04:23:10 ---
Created an attachment (id=265)
-- (http://bugs.exim.org/attachment.cgi?id=265)
Treat
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=674
--- Comment #13 from Phil Pennock [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-15 12:56:34 ---
You're not likely to have long to wait. RFC 5246 is now out, specifying TLS
1.2
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=722
--- Comment #8 from Phil Pennock [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-14 10:24:44 ---
Created an attachment (id=264)
-- (http://bugs.exim.org/attachment.cgi?id=264)
Patch
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=665
--- Comment #6 from Phil Pennock [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-14 19:49:04 ---
Oh good, it's an obvious and sane versioning scheme. Always a pleasant
surprise.
So
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=736
--- Comment #13 from Phil Pennock [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-14 10:29:19 ---
What were the results of the manual mail delivery per comment #7 on 2008-07-17
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=674
--- Comment #10 from Phil Pennock [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-14 06:17:09 ---
Created an attachment (id=262)
-- (http://bugs.exim.org/attachment.cgi?id=262
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=674
--- Comment #9 from Phil Pennock [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-14 05:49:32 ---
Created an attachment (id=261)
-- (http://bugs.exim.org/attachment.cgi?id=261)
New
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=665
Phil Pennock [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=674
--- Comment #8 from Phil Pennock [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-14 02:46:32 ---
*sigh* In of poor ciphers in the normal, I mis-spoke. Poor digest
algorithms. Sorry
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=674
--- Comment #5 from Phil Pennock [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-13 08:10:35 ---
FWIW, this does not fail for me until I use tls_verify_hosts instead
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=567
Phil Pennock [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384
Phil Pennock [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=570
Phil Pennock [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=643
--- Comment #5 from Phil Pennock [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-08-13 06:51:13 ---
Created an attachment (id=255)
-- (http://bugs.exim.org/attachment.cgi?id=255
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=745
Summary: Exim doesn't report SSL versions
Product: Exim
Version: 4.69
Platform: Other
OS/Version: All
601 - 700 of 715 matches
Mail list logo
