2009/12/22 Brent Bloxam <[email protected]>: > Yeah, I was trying to wrap my head around how exactly Exim would be > accepting delivery, and it didn't even cross my mind to consider > Mailscanner modifying content when doing cleaning/disarming. Argh! Looks > like that's the cause for the \n missing, but the issue to me was never > really about the cause of the missing \n (although that's great to know, > and I'll hunt that down with the Mailscanner group soon), but about the > lack of assertion on Exim's side against that. I had opened a bug report > about this, but Nigel doesn't believe that Exim should be making sure > it's actually sending '.' on a new line in an SMTP transaction. It just > seems odd to me to rely solely on the content of a spool file for that
Because spool files are not an official API. Exim considers that it wrote them and nobody changed them. Not unreasonable. OTOH, as has been pointed out in the bug report, it wouldn't be too hard to make Exim do something more helpful. Peter -- Peter Bowyer Email: [email protected] Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/peeebeee -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
