On Thu, 3 May 2007, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote: > On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 16:29 +0100, Philip Hazel wrote: > > Then it struck me that there is no need to mess with signals. A simple > > call to select() can also detect this situation. I have therefore > > implemented code to do this (with some extra features for the "input > > sent too soon" case, because of buffering), and my tests seem to show > > that it works nicely, with and without TLS. > > does this code handle the case where there is data available on the > socket, but it's not in the upper layer?
I do not know, but I suspect probably not. I am completely ignorant of how the various layers work. The code does whatever select() does on the operating system you are running. > Exim seems to return EOF for the SSL_ERROR_WANT_READ case which you get > when there has been a renegotiation, and that causes Exim to drop the > message. > > it's not a big problem since this should be very rare, and the delivery > should be retried later, and it's unlikely the renegotiation would > happen at the exact same spot once more. Sounds like it's a "minor infelicity" that we can probably live with. The benefit of suppressing unwanted multiple deliveries outweighs it, I think. -- Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service Get the Exim 4 book: http://www.uit.co.uk/exim-book -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
