Andreas Metzler (Do 19 Jan 2017 15:44:17 CET):
> Hello,
>
> I am considering to temporarily disable BDAT in Debian's exim packages.
>
> Afaict BDAT in exim is still stabilizing, multiple issues have shown up
> since 4.88 and some are still unfixed.
>
> OTOH we (Debian) do not have time to wait
On 2017-01-19 Jeremy Harris wrote:
> On 19/01/17 14:44, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > Any thoughts, strong opinions against?
> It's the right way to do it, and probably wise
> given the outstanding bug against CHUNKING vs. DKIM.
Thank you for doublechecking the patch.
I have just uploaded since I
On 19/01/17 14:44, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Any thoughts, strong opinions against?
It's the right way to do it, and probably wise
given the outstanding bug against CHUNKING vs. DKIM.
--
Cheers,
Jeremy
--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim
details at htt
Hello,
I am considering to temporarily disable BDAT in Debian's exim packages.
Afaict BDAT in exim is still stabilizing, multiple issues have shown up
since 4.88 and some are still unfixed.
OTOH we (Debian) do not have time to wait for BDAT to get ready. Debian
is currently preparing for a new s
https://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2016
Andreas Metzler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eximus...@bebt.de
--- Comment #5 from Andreas
On 2017-01-18 at 16:06 +, Jeremy Harris wrote:
> To expand: Exim's implementation of Proxy Protocol
> is currently hooked in after the TLS start done for
> tls-on-connect.
>
> It turns out that the protocol spec document is ambiguous
> and the other way about (proxy-protocol handling done
> in
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 04:06:05PM +, Jeremy Harris wrote:
> It turns out that the protocol spec document is ambiguous
> and the other way about (proxy-protocol handling done
> in-clear, then TLS) is the preferred way for HAproxy.
>
> Is anyone using and relying on the current Exim implementa
