Andrew Johnson wrote:
> I 100% agree, but the servers connecting to our relay are in some cases
> badly configured, out of date with patching and just plain old.
I understand that, I've been long enough in this business. I just wanted
to know with which servers the behaviour described by you happens.
> This patch was to provide a cleaner fix rather than the less elegant bogus
> authenticator with a name of "\r\n250-AUTH="
You wrote that the bogus authenticator didn't fix the behaviour, so this
wouldn't be a question of elegance. Applying non-trivial patches is far
less elegant than a little config change.
