On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, Fred Viles wrote:
> | It's the "for some anti-Microsoft reasons" that needs to be
> | substantiated.
When there is an issue with doing something that is different from what
is in the RFCs, the implementor has to decide whether to go for it or
not. Different people draw lines at different places. It is a value
judgement. As has been pointed out, including any extra code adds a
perpetual support burden; for something this is of minority use, this is
another subjective judgement that has to be made.
> bogus:
> driver = plaintext
> public_name = "\r\n250-AUTH=PLAIN LOGIN"
> server_prompts = User Name : Password
> server_condition = no
Clever!
--
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
