On Sun, Jun 16, 2002 at 09:50:38PM +0100, Alan J. Flavell wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jun 2002, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
> > Could you post a cite for the standard that says it's legal, please?
> No, Sir, I couldn't. Maybe I shouldn't have made that incidental
> remark in passing, because it seems to have distracted from the
> practical issue. If Phil says it's not legal, then that's good enough
> for me. (But not, unfortunately, for my user!)
I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to antagonise, I was genuinely curious to read
evidence to back up that it was legal. I can quite understand users
saying that they don't care that something isn't legal, but they want to
send/receive it anyway, in which case, in my experience delivering it but
incurring a delay, or changing the subject to include "[MALFORMED]" is
the best way to get users to change their behaviour, and then they still
get the benefits, but they act to make things better.
> > It's certainly not legal from my reading of either of RFCs 822 or 2822,
> Well, as I say, the practical problem here is that the user _is_ being
> sent such stuff (or rather, attempts are being made to send it ;-),
> and _would_ like to receive it, but he has no leverage by which to
> persuade the sender to adjust their mail distribution headers.
Phil will, obviously, provide the authoritative answer for Exim 3, but I
don't know of any way to see the kind of information you want from a
variable in Exim 3. It would probably end up being a patch. The bit you
want is if(headers_check_syntax) (around line 1854 in the exim 3.33 source
that's lying around).
> Sorry. I don't like it either, but I still feel the need of some kind
> of fix to satisfy this user request.
It doesn't appear to set any variables, though I suspect you could set a
boolean that could then be used as an expansion variable.
MBM
--
Matthew Byng-Maddick <mbm@???> http://colondot.net/
