Re: [exim] Let the 'postmaster' callout option be damned

On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 09:41 +0100, Philip Hazel wrote:
> > and if you buy David's argument that explicitly specifying a sender
> > address should be required,
>
> I don't buy David's argument, for backward compatibility reasons.

Consider the failure modes.

If postmaster callouts stop happening after an upgrade because the admin
hasn't specified a source address, then it's not actually going to break
anything. Yes, it's not 100% backwards compatible, but it's not really
very harmful.

Tim's original post was pointing out a real compatibility problem with
(reasonable hosts in) the outside world, which is caused by performing
postmaster callouts with the null sender. Isn't that a more important
compatibility concern?

> > making the '=xxxx' non-optional would force existing installations
> > using postmaster to add it when they upgrade.
>
> ... and would make it impossible to upgrade seamlessly (unless I do it
> in two stages).

I was following from Tim's suggestion that it should just be made a
no-op and deprecated. It would be a no-op _unless_ you specify the
sender to use.

--
dwmw2