On Wed, 7 Dec 2005, Jakob Hirsch wrote:
> 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.
I suppose I'd better say that I am not in favour of putting what is
quite a large amount of code into the main source, just to support a
very few hosts that use a doubly non-standard facility that was
standardized at least 6 years ago. A non-trivial amount of documentation
would also be needed. I say "doubly non-standard" because what I might
call "singly non-standard" hosts seem to be handled by the configuration
hack, so the hosts causing the problem under discussion are (apparently)
even more non-standard.
Hmm. I wonder what units are used to measure non-standardness? There's a
Christmas competition question for you... :-)
--
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
