On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 09:20:15AM +0100, Philip Hazel wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jul 2006, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> > Ok, I think I got it right now. I implemented smtp_code support in routers and
> > sent an update of my previous patch. Please check it out:
> >
> > http://www.exim.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115
>
> I started looking at your (previous) patch at end of last week, and
> should be able to do some more on it this week (next week is the Exim
> course). I was torn between using a new option smtp_code, as you did,
> and allowing the user to put codes at the start of the message. That is,
> the choice between:
>
> message = your message here
> smtp_code = 599
>
> and
>
> message = 599 your message here
>
> The point I want to think about is extended status codes, which some
> people want. If you want something like
>
> message = 599 1.2.3 your message here
>
> then the whole "code" is a string rather than a number, and there seems
> little point in having two different strings - why not just use one.
> (And even when there is no extended status, it has to end up as a
> string, after all.)
The only drawback I can think of is backwards compatibility. Either we drop it,
or we have to add a kludge to prepend the old string with the code.
> I now need to look at your router code and see whether this adds
> anything to the background. Then I'll make a decision...
Ok. Please keep me informed.
Thanks,
--
Robert Millan
My spam trap is honeypot@???. Note: this address is only intended for
spam harvesters. Writing to it will get you added to my black list.
