Tony Finch wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, W B Hacker wrote:
>
>>>Urgh, yuck. Why not use an ACL variable?
>>
>>Simple reason here was that we don't have any left to spare. ;-)
>>(unless Phil bumped from 0-9 to 0-99 when I wasn't looking...)
>
>
> ChangeLog for version 4.61:
>
> PH/06 Increased the number of ACL variables to 20 of each type, and arranged
> for visible compile-time settings that can be used to change these
> numbers, for those that want even more. Backwards compatibility with old
> spool files has been maintained. However, going back to a previous Exim
> release will lost any variables that are in spool files.
>
>
Great! Thanks!
Too busy to upgrade before I swapped continents for the summer, but now on the
agenda soon as I'm back in Hong Kong.
>>In any case, what would it gain, code-wise?
>
>
> It's ugly to mess around with the message header in order to implement
> envelope-level logic.
>
No argument on that generalization.
Now how does an acl_m variable - not turned into a header - help determine, two
days after the fact when the user is bitching, whether a given message was/was
not, should have been - so flagged AND correctly actioned?
Not that this is the only reason, but if headers are not of more value than
ephemeral variables in after-action analysis, visible to others besides the
admin, even - why then does sesame.csx.cam.ac.uk add so very many of them for
this mailing list?
;-)
Bill
