On Thu, 5 Nov 1998, Malcolm Ray wrote:
> > Oh dear, I'm getting into an RFC debate. Looks like the problem won't go away.
> You're onto a loser if you're discussing RFCs with someone who can make a
> bizarre statement like:
> > > E: RCPT ;Recipient details & path e-mail has travelled (basically the
> > e-mail header)
> which could only be made by someone with no real understanding of SMTP.
> You've been firewalled.
Unfortunately we have to take the attitude that the customer is right until
we can prove them wrong AND fix them.
> I notice nobody has pointed out that this very problem has arisen on the
> list before: I think Nigel Metheringham came up against Tobit and got the
Yes, NM has privately discussed them. Tobit's attitude as you say isn't one
of cooperation, and they denigrated Exim for no other reason than it's free!
> Apart from the 'zero or more transactions' quote from RFC 821, note this from
> RFC 1123 (host requirements):
>
> When the same message is to be delivered to several users on
> the same host, only one copy of the message SHOULD be
!snip!
> Fine, it will. But note that the latter is *permitted* (as indicated by
> the use of the word 'should' rather than 'must', these words having very
agreed; Exim does a very good job of delivering email, and DavidPostman seems
to be a weak implementation of an MTA.
> I just did a test, with interesting results (addresses changed in the
> following log, of course):
I will await with interest the results of your test.
Paul
--
*** Exim information can be found at
http://www.exim.org/ ***
