On Mon, 5 Apr 2004, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> Now, either the new sender behaviour is what was intended, in which case
> the caching of the domain negative needs to be stopped, or the new
> sender behaviour is a mistake, in which case the old behaviour needs to
> be re-adopted.
The new behaviour was intentional, following requests/discussions on the
list. See the ChangeLog. Clearly I introduced a caching bug.
> Either way, it's a major problem and needs urgent attention.
I am pleased that there are people on this list who can fix Exim bugs.
The Exim community cannot rely on my always being online and having
immediate time to devote to this.
> My C skills are rusty, I've never looked at the Exim source code
> before and I don't know the intention of the person who made this
> change, so all I can do at this moment is holler.
The bottom line with any Open Source software is that you have to fix it
yourself if nobody else will fix it for you. I make no apology for that.
On Mon, 5 Apr 2004, Nico Erfurth wrote:
> Try this patch:
Thanks, Nico. It's good to have you around picking up things like this.
I do so like it when I find a bug report and a fix in the same
collection of messages.
I'll get this patch on later in the week, and maybe think about 4.32 for
about 10 day's time.
Philip
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
