On 02-Dec-98 at 11:01:34 Philip Hazel wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Dec 1998, John Horne wrote:
>
>> I'd also make the point that whilst allowing a leading dot still allows
>> exim to be a 'drop-in' replacement for sendmail, do we want to follow
>> it to the extent of non-standard practices? Should it diverge from
>> sendmail in that it is 'correct'?
>
> My views on this are entirely pragmatic.
>
> (2) Even when there are RFCs, they are only "advisory". Nobody has to
> follow them, but if your software fails to interwork and does not
> conform to an RFC, then the fault is definitely yours.
>
Agreed. In that respect if sendmail had followed the RFC then we probably
wouldn't be at this point now.
> In the matter of leading dots in local parts, I decided to go with (iii)
> because there was a previous (un-optioned) relaxation to allow .. in the
> middle of a local part and a dot at the end, so it seemed silly to
> invent an option for just the case of dot at the start...
>
Agreed.
> This would have been a bit like helo_strict_syntax, which I bet very few
> people actually set.
>
Ah! Yes. Well...we actually do :-) (Had no problems with it being set mind!)
>> I'm just not too happy with exim doing something sendmail does when it
>> doesn't seem to be in accordance with the RFC's or any BCP's currently
>> available, and when it was allowed by exim, the not, and now is again.
>> (Sorry Philip - not getting at you here :-) )
> Oh dear. Perhaps I should document all the existing "violations", but
> maybe you'd have a heart attack...
>
Perhaps best not :-) I'll wait until they pop up (joke, joke!) :-)
John.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Horne E-mail: J.Horne@???
Academic and Information Services Phone : +44 (0) 1752 - 233914
University of Plymouth, UK Fax : +44 (0) 1752 - 233919
--
*** Exim information can be found at
http://www.exim.org/ ***
