On 10 Jun 1999 michael@??? wrote:
> > Not sure. This is mainly contributed code which I did not originate.
> > Presumably the belief is that this is a configuration error, so the
> > message should be kept and tried again - hopefully when the
> > configuration has been corrected. This is similar to deferring for a
> > syntax error in an Exim filter file.
>
> Ok, so I vote for fail instead of defer.
What do other LDAP users on this list think? I do not use LDAP, so I
don't have a feel for this.
> I don't know if the RFC defines that the protocol://host[:port] part of
> an URL has to resolve to an A record or if SRV records would be allowed
> as well. I do know that I need a solution to my problem of a fall-back
> host urgently and the appended patch appears to provide it. ;)
Again, what do other LDAP users think of this patch? If it is generally
liked, I have no objection to considering it for inclusion.
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
--
*** Exim information can be found at
http://www.exim.org/ ***
