On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Chris Lear wrote:
> So the error is misleading only in as much as it says there's been a
> "violation" when perhaps there's only been an infringement that nobody
> really has a good name for [implementation that doesn't quite do what it
> SHOULD?].
Quite.
> It's nitpicking to object to the wording of the error. And it's probably
> nitpicking to say that the RFC is internally inconsistent. But my guess
> is that the subscribers to this list like a good nitpick more than the
> average non-RFC-obsessive. I certainly do.
Sigh. :-)
Suggest me some wording, and I'll change it.
--
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
