On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 10:52:31PM -0800,
Marc MERLIN <marc_news@???> is thought to have said:
> 1) yes, I keep my logs, no everyone doesn't
> 2) my request doesn't change the API, please go read it again.
> It makes use of the return_text variable that was designed exactly to
> return the data message to send back to the other server.
> it just happens to be read right now in the 2xx case (but it is for 4xx
> and 5xx)
>
> > I'm not saying you are. I just think an API change that breaks compatibility
> > of existing local_scan() functions in a point release isn't that good of
>
> I won't argue this forever, there's no point, and again, no the change does
> not need to break compatibility.
I'll defer to Philip regarding whether or not it changes the API.
I'm not trying to argue this, I'm just trying to understand why this change
would be necessary at all. I've re-read your posts in the thread and I'm
having trouble seeing what you gain by accepting the message, returning a
custom 2xx message, and then junking the message. Why not just reject it
at the end of DATA if the concern is that the sender know the reason it
didn't go to the intended recipient?
Please explain it. I'm completely serious. I'd honestly like to understand
the thinking here.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Tabor J. Wells twells@???
Fsck It! Just another victim of the ambient morality
