Quoting Philip Hazel (ph10@???):
> On Wed, 12 May 1999, James Fidell wrote:
>
> > Digging about in the source, this appears to be because at the start of
> > smtp_start_session (smtp_in.c) the value of received_protocol is reset
> > to one of "smtp", "local-bsmtp" or "local-smtp" despite the fact that it
> > was already set on the command line and has the correct value on entering
> > the function.
> >
> > Is this a bug ?
>
> Well, it is documented! Under -oMr it says "It applies only to non-SMTP
> and batched SMTP input." On that basis, I'm *not* going to rush to make
> a last minute change to the 3.00 release (which is imminent). If you
> read the code further, you will see that the protocol value can get
> changed as a result of receiving an EHLO command (to "esmtp"), so this
> is fairly involved.
Errrm. I am using the "-bS" option and feeding it batch smtp data. I
thought that meant that the "-oMr" option would work as I was expecting ?
> I know that people have started using -oMr to "tag" messages that have
> been processed in some special way. This is a useful feature, but is in
> some sense a "wrong" use of -oMr. Was this what you wanted it for?
> Perhaps I should implement something completely new, for example,
> -oMx <string> which can only be set from the command line and which will
> never be set otherwise (and some variable to make its value available).
> Would this cover your case?
Pretty much, yes.
"-oMr" has some useful semantics for re-introducing virus-scanned messages
in that it allows a trusted user only to set a flag that can be tested to
see if the message has been scanned ok. Having a flag that anyone can set
would possibly be useful, but not necessarily in this context.
James.
--
"Yield to temptation -- | Consultancy: james@???
it may not pass your way again" | http://www.cloud9.co.uk/james
|
- Lazarus Long | James Fidell
--
*** Exim information can be found at
http://www.exim.org/ ***
