On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Not quite sure what you mean by
> > "missing are any other details". The code appears to be written so as to
> > include any envelope sender, recipients and header lines that it has
> > read before detecting the error.
>
> It doesn't, in fact, seem to do this.
It will only do it if it has got that far - that's what I meant by "that
it has read". If the error is in MAIL FROM, then it hasn't got anything.
> I therefore suggest that Exim's exit status from -bS be defined as
> follows:
Thank you for your suggestions. I added an item about BSMTP to the Wish
List on February 3rd. I have only just started looking at the code again
(major bugs apart) after a period of letting the 2.1x releases settle
down. However, I cannot promise to get to that item in any specific
timescale.
> I'm not sure how to say this without being rude, which I don't want to
> be because I do respect Phil. However, I think that lack of
> experience with BSMTP may be contributing to the situation ...
That is not at all rude, but thank you for the qualification. You are
absolutely right. I have *zero* experience with using BSMTP.
Consequently I must rely on advice from others as to how to handle it.
When I do get round to it, I'll put up a test release for you to play
with.
Is there anybody else on this list who uses BSMTP who would like to
comment on Ian's proposals? I think BSMTP is probably a minority issue,
so maybe you should mail me/Ian directly rather than clutter up the
list.
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
--
*** Exim information can be found at
http://www.exim.org/ ***
