Author: Roger Burton West Date: To: exim-users Subject: Re: [Exim] Should vacation messages go to reply_address or return_path
On or about Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 02:51:16PM +0100, Ian Southam typed:
>The top and bottom of it is, that you are mostly correct in your assertions
>about RFCs and, if we could just get the most popular MUAs on the market to
>stick to some of them, everything would indeed be a good deal easier.
>
>You cannot however simply quote RFCs repeatedly as some sort of Mantra, exim
>is compliant, many things aren't. (Look at how many MTAs provide options to
>deliberately introduce non-compliance to aid interoperability).
And look at how well it works.
If you decide that your program should have a "break the RFCs" mode in
order to interoperate with $BROKEN_MTA, it may well work better in that
context - but when $BROKEN_MTA's next version comes out, you'll have to
write that code again, and there'll be random broken versions of your
program floating around long after $BROKEN_MTA is forgotten.
My experience has been that trying to meet broken software half-way is
like sharing your food with a hungry wolf.
