Re: [Exim] Planning for Exim 4

Quoth Philip Hazel on Sun, Jan 07, 2001:
> On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Vadim Vygonets wrote:
> > Nice. I would also like to propose multiple router lists for
> > different sets of domains, ending with "break" (to stop router
> > processing and reject message if all routers failed) or
> > "continue" or "fallthrough" (to continue router processing).
>
> I'm wary of this simply because of the increase complexity of parsing
> the configuration file. But I'll think about it.

Indeed, I thought maybe it would be unneeded complexity. But
maybe not.

> > "authenticated" should probably take a parameter specifying valid
> > IDs to allow different people do different things based on the ID
> > they authenticated with.
>
> Another good point. Actually, perhaps we need a more general "condition"
> setting that can expand a string, and thereby test any of the variables
> that are set up at this stage.

OTOH, it has "commands" such as "verify". But they can be coded
as functions returning false if verification fails.

> But subsequent RFCs defined the PIPELINING extension to SMTP, and Exim
> supports this.

Ah.

> However, there are still points where the client is
> supposed to wait before sending more data. This is an interesting idea
> which could perhaps be applied at those points.

Or, if the greeting was HELO and not EHLO, at every point.

Vadik.

--
Bell Labs Unix -- Reach out and grep someone.