On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, holmgren@??? wrote:
> Considering that RFC 2821 allows 512-character lines, wrapping at around 80
> characters doesn't seem really necessary.
Exactly. It is done for human readability. After all, that's the whole
idea of these messages - though we all know users don't actually read
them. :-)
> But in that case there shouldn't be any automatic wrapping at all; the
> admin should make sure that any customized messages have line breaks
> where he wants them.
They aren't all completely admin-specified messages: some may contain
inserted Exim error texts, etc. This wrapping was introduced by request,
IIRC.
> But if the wrapping is where it is because it is generally a good idea to keep
> individual lines of text shorter than 80 characters, independently of the
> protocol, then it is wrong to put the wrapping in smtp_respond().
Quite.
> Which of my remarks did you construe as doubts regarding the interaction
> between ACLs and smtp_respond()?
The one about not being sure of catching all cases.
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service
Get the Exim 4 book: http://www.uit.co.uk/exim-book
