On Sat, 15 Jan 2005, Peter Denison wrote:
> Is this sufficient as a patch-submission process, or is there some other
> address or list I should forward to?
This is sufficient (I have noticed it :-). However, it is too late for
4.50.
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> FWIW I (debian maintainer) would not claim to be a "interested party".
> ;-) We will not patch it out again if Phil includes it in exim, but we
> will not apply it to the Debian packages if Phil denies. Imho the
> benefits of rewriting the message-ids simply dwarf against the
> downsides.
I try to take a neutral stand on issues where there are strong opinions
on both sides ("I really need this feature" vs "that's a crazy thing to
do"). If people are going to patch Exim to achieve what they want, and
the patch isn't totally outragious[*], and it doesn't affect those who
don't configure it, I usually consider it for inclusion. I've put this
one on the list.
[*] Of course, that's subjective too... and I do have prejudices like
everyone else. :-)
Philip
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
