Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 12:43:25 +0200 From: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> To: Ceri Davies <ceri@submonkey.net> Cc: eik@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Issue with your exim port's Makefile Message-ID: <40B717CD.8040309@fillmore-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <20040528092107.GP23460@submonkey.net> References: <BAY18-F52cU6xfPTeip00053fb5@hotmail.com> <20040528002853.GT2124@k7.mavetju> <20040528092107.GP23460@submonkey.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ceri Davies wrote: > On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 10:28:53AM +1000, Edwin Groothuis wrote: > >>On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 03:36:47PM -0700, David Fisher wrote: >> >>>RFC 822 : >> >>RFC0822 is obsoleted, please see RFC2822, paragraph 3.2.3. > > Guys, come on. We've been told that it causes problems, and it will > take all of 4 seconds to fix (literally). Can't we just do it? No, we can't. Pushing to do a quick fix to a minor glitch is normally not a good idea, working together to fully understand the problem, work around it and test the fix is. Normally I try to test my changes for more than four seconds. I will change this, actually I had it changed in my local copy, but it didn't made it with the latest upgrade. As you may have noticed I made an offer to change it in my response, but wanted to know which RFC I'm breaking, since the offered alternative `:' did not look much different too me, RFC-wise. I just wanted to figure out whether I'm really working around another bug in the various forms of Outlook, or if the problem goes deeper. You also may have noticed that I tried to clarify this privately (removing the CC of questions@), so please don't criticize people that are only trying to help (since they have been asked to do so by the submitter). It is something totally different to work around a bug in Outlook (any other character than `;' will do) or a RFC violation (where `:' would probably have been illegal, too). To restate: Of course I will add an workaround for Outlook bugs if they don't introduce new problems, but I have to understand the problem before just doing *something* that will break another mailer. I'm not a big fan of harum-scarum patches. Probably the Debian way (using nested comments) is the way to go. -Oliver
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?40B717CD.8040309>