Mike Cardwell wrote:
> W B Hacker wrote:
>
>> My bad.
>>
>> Flawed test, sad to say.
>
> Yeah.
>
>> Inserting one line of code:
>>
>> sender_host_name = sender_host_address;
>>
>> ... to utilize existing variables might be the mark of a Hacker (hey it
>> IS my 'real name')
>
> It wouldn't be compatible with peoples configs. You'd need to have a new
> variable. Something like $sender_host_ptr. However, why bother writing
> new code and adding further config options when the capability already
> exists in dnsdb. Feels like bloat to me.
>
One line with "<variable> = <value>" isn't a whole lot of 'new code', actually.
- Given that the test is already there, already sets flags for PTR not found,
- Simply doesn't distinguish between the fail flag returned by the abbreviated
test, and one returned by the more comprehensive test, IF it is run at all.
Ironically, the log string ALREADY DOES preserve and expose the difference.
>> ..But is 'lighter' than having to build dnsdb just to see if a PTR RR
>> 'exists'.
>
I'm still waiting for someone to weigh-in with something dnsdb does that has a
bit more utility - or at least is harder to substitute for.
> By your definition of, "lighter," yes.
>
Well.. the Exim 4.69-3 binary here is about 740KBytes -DWITH_PGSQL.
> It seems that everybody so far has disagreed with you.
ACK. The *ratio* looks overwhelming.
But does that mean we have now heard from all five who want dnsdb in the
default? Or was it four?
Is the tail wagging the dog?
Or do the majority simply have simpler ways of getting the job done and not
really care?
> I'd suggest you
> add your negative vote to the whishlist item, but that doesn't look
> possible unfortunately.
>
Done. Some time ago.
BTW - personally it affects me not.
I've shifted to use of a customized build anyway.
Bill
