On Mon, 2004-02-23 at 15:19 +0100, Daniel Roethlisberger wrote:
> I agree that proper handling of quoting is extremely important, and both
> my rewriting schemes use the exim3 ${quote:...} mechanism, and seem to
> handle all aspects of RFC282[12] quoting just fine. But if you do find a
> specific problem with my implementation after all, please let me know.
I have not tested your implementation scheme since I have not had an
Exim 3 box for years. The original mail which in part you quoted was
sent to Martin. If you look closely you can tell that it was Martin whom
I was addressing, because his address is in the 'To:' header of my mail.
> Naturally, I cannot speak for the other implementations of return path
> rewriting (MTvB, Shevek, others?), but you can easily check them before
> supposing quoting problems that might or might not be there.
I wrote an implementation based on Martin's. Testing showed it to have a
bug. It looked like Martin's implementation had the same bug so I
reported this possibility to him with an example of a localpart which
caused mine to go wrong. Why do you sound so offended by this?
> I don't think this discussion is appropriate here on exim-users
If it were about Exim 3 I'd agree. But since it's a discussion of a
configuration for Exim 4, and since I think it's actually highlighting a
common error, I disagree. Only a few days ago someone was advocating the
use of
data = $local_part@$domain
in a redirect router, despite the fact the the documentation clearly
suggests otherwise.
Besides, the level of clue on exim-users is decidedly higher than that
evident in the other place. What little patience I originally had for
the fundamentally broken concepts of SPF and SRS has been reduced
significantly over the last day or so. TBH I think I'm going to turn off
my implementation and simply declare my forwarding machines to be
SPF-incompatible, like 98% of the rest of the world.
--
dwmw2
