On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> > A. Reduce the return_size_limit default to 10K.
> >
> > B. Implement bounce_return_body, and default it FALSE.
> >
> > C. It strikes me that "return_size_limit" is not a very helpful name any
> > more. I propose to rename it as bounce_return_size_limit, but keep the
> > old name as a deprecated synonym.
>
> You've got my vote for all three changes. I see no reason whatsoever
> to return messages bodies in bounce messages (not that my systems
> generate bounces very often anyway :-)
On reconsideration, so that people can prepare in advance, I now propose
to add bounce_return_body with default TRUE in the next release, and
state that the two defaults (return_size_limit and bounce_return_body)
will change at the *following* release. People can then set these
options in their configs in advance of the incompatible change.
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
Get the Exim 4 book: http://www.uit.co.uk/exim-book
