That's fair enough, it's just as I'd written it I thought I'd pass the code
on anyway and get opinion. We have to patch Exim for DSN anyway, so this
isn't much more work on top for us.
-Andy-
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philip Hazel [mailto:ph10@cus.cam.ac.uk]
> Sent: 07 December 2005 16:57
> To: Jakob Hirsch
> Cc: andrew.johnson@???; exim-dev@???
> Subject: RE: [exim-dev] FW: Legacy EHLO AUTH responses (patch) 4.52
>
> 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... :-)
>
