On 2011-05-20 at 11:18 +, W B Hacker wrote:
> Phil Pennock wrote:
> > and just commit a change defaulting accept_8bitmime to on, then
> > after the next release of Exim take a month-long holiday from the
> > Internet to avoid the flame-wars until they settle down and everyone
> > realises that
Ian Eiloart wrote:
*snip*
Exim may be odd-man out with 8BITMIME optioned OFF - but it has NOT
so far become a global pariah for that behaviour.
Well, that'll be because mobile email is still a minority pursuit,
Meaning mobiles are the main source of 8BITMIME?
For Wot? Photos taken wit
>>
>
> First off, just sent you directly a test message so we can set up to do some
> off-list testing - hopefully come back with better info, less chatter.
>
> Because ... Optioned ON or OFF, I am having a hard time getting my arms
> around seeing 8BITMIME as a noteworthy problem.
>
> A) RFC
Phil Pennock wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
*snip*
Phil, we are on the same song-sheet on this one!
Sitting (mostly) in Asia, 8-bit, especially UTF-8, is dear to us, and
has not been a problem AT ALL with defaults. Nor with Qmail before Exim.
nor Courier-MTA. So i
Ian Eiloart wrote:
On 19 May 2011, at 19:05, W B Hacker wrote:
Ian Eiloart wrote:
*snip*
*snip* again
If nothing has reverted, I read that as a U Cambridge server having
accepted 8BITMIME with a 250-Ok many years and versions ago.
Yes, but it was advertising 8bitmime, so you'd expect
On 2011-05-19 at 14:10 +, W B Hacker wrote:
> Phil Pennock wrote:
> > At present, there's split_spool_directory, which divides things up with
> > one level of hashing, and then some people script their own queue-runner
> > launchers, running in parallel over sub-trees of the split spool instead
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
On 2011-05-20 at 09:36 +, Ian Eiloart wrote:
> On 19 May 2011, at 19:05, W B Hacker wrote:
> > If nothing has reverted, I read that as a U Cambridge server having
> > accepted 8BITMIME with a 250-Ok many years and versions ago.
>
> It doesn't
On 19 May 2011, at 18:27, W B Hacker wrote:
> Ian Eiloart wrote:
>>
>> On 19 May 2011, at 13:35, W B Hacker wrote:
>>
part allows integration with an IMAP server, a message is
submitted with a an IMAP url to allow forward without download,
etc.
>>>
>>> ??
>>>
>>> IF the c
On 19 May 2011, at 19:05, W B Hacker wrote:
> Ian Eiloart wrote:
>>
> *snip*
>>
>> Well 8bitmime is implemented almost everywhere. The thing is, I can't
>> turn it on without installing a non-Exim smart host to downgrade
>> messages that I send to other Exim sites!
>
> Are you SURE about Exim
On 19 May 2011, at 19:05, W B Hacker wrote:
> Ian Eiloart wrote:
>>
> *snip*
>>
>> Well 8bitmime is implemented almost everywhere. The thing is, I can't
>> turn it on without installing a non-Exim smart host to downgrade
>> messages that I send to other Exim sites!
>
> Are you SURE about Exim
W B Hacker wrote:
Ian Eiloart wrote:
*snip*
Well 8bitmime is implemented almost everywhere. The thing is, I can't
turn it on without installing a non-Exim smart host to downgrade
messages that I send to other Exim sites!
Are you SURE about Exim not being able to handle it on the inbound if
Ian Eiloart wrote:
*snip*
Well 8bitmime is implemented almost everywhere. The thing is, I can't
turn it on without installing a non-Exim smart host to downgrade
messages that I send to other Exim sites!
Are you SURE about Exim not being able to handle it on the inbound if we
were to switch
Ian Eiloart wrote:
On 19 May 2011, at 13:35, W B Hacker wrote:
part allows integration with an IMAP server, a message is
submitted with a an IMAP url to allow forward without download,
etc.
??
IF the content is already located at a URI, all that is needed is
the URI. We all get such - mos
On 19 May 2011, at 13:35, W B Hacker wrote:
>>
>> part allows integration with an IMAP server, a message is submitted
>> with a an IMAP url to allow forward without download, etc.
>
> ??
>
> IF the content is already located at a URI, all that is needed is the URI.
> We all get such - mostl
On 19/05/11 15:43, W B Hacker wrote:
W B Hacker wrote:
Phil Pennock wrote:
On 2011-05-19 at 12:35 +0100, Dominic Benson wrote:
On 19/05/11 11:50, Phil Pennock wrote:
New queuing system refers to an approach to scale up the spool
directory
to something more queue-like, with segregated admin-d
W B Hacker wrote:
Phil Pennock wrote:
On 2011-05-19 at 12:35 +0100, Dominic Benson wrote:
On 19/05/11 11:50, Phil Pennock wrote:
New queuing system refers to an approach to scale up the spool
directory
to something more queue-like, with segregated admin-defined queues (eg,
"big_freemail_provi
Phil Pennock wrote:
On 2011-05-19 at 12:35 +0100, Dominic Benson wrote:
On 19/05/11 11:50, Phil Pennock wrote:
New queuing system refers to an approach to scale up the spool directory
to something more queue-like, with segregated admin-defined queues (eg,
"big_freemail_provider_x"). This is b
On 2011-05-19 at 12:35 +0100, Dominic Benson wrote:
> On 19/05/11 11:50, Phil Pennock wrote:
> >
> > New queuing system refers to an approach to scale up the spool directory
> > to something more queue-like, with segregated admin-defined queues (eg,
> > "big_freemail_provider_x"). This is because
On Thu, 2011-05-19 at 10:24 +, W B Hacker wrote:
>
> - 'true' push? (no continuously open data connection)
> Email to SMS gateway with selective headers-only notification.
More likely this would take the form of an SMS message with
data-coding-scheme 0xCA (see GSM-03.38 ยง4).
That wou
Ian Eiloart wrote:
On 19 May 2011, at 11:24, W B Hacker wrote:
Ian Eiloart wrote:
LEMONADE compliance
?
I don't see that what has been published so far has any interaction
with an MTA-only such as Exim at all. Integrated MTA+IMAP,
perhaps
Otherwise, the LEMONADE features proposed appea
Steffen Heil wrote:
*snip*
Reserve 5.0 (followed by 5.1) for really incompatible changes, conceptional
changes. Such as 3.x to 4.x.
Regards,
Steffen
+++
... and Amen.
Bill
--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
#
On 19/05/11 11:50, Phil Pennock wrote:
New queuing system refers to an approach to scale up the spool directory
to something more queue-like, with segregated admin-defined queues (eg,
"big_freemail_provider_x"). This is because while Exim is excellent at
inbound mail, it doesn't always scale as
Hi
While I don't really care about version numbers but only about
functionality, the following is just an worthless opinion, but still my 2
ct.
> * Don't break lexical comparison, not going 4.9901
> * So will go from 4.99 to 5.00
Not breaking lexical comparision and therefor rega
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 13:50, Phil Pennock wrote:
> On 2011-05-19 at 09:58 +, Ian Eiloart wrote:
> > But no, I don't see a sign of 5.0, or even discussion of what
> > desirable radical changes would justify a major version number change.
> > It might just be that we run out of minor version
On 19 May 2011, at 11:24, W B Hacker wrote:
> Ian Eiloart wrote:
>> LEMONADE compliance
> ?
>
> I don't see that what has been published so far has any interaction with an
> MTA-only such as Exim at all. Integrated MTA+IMAP, perhaps
>
> Otherwise, the LEMONADE features proposed appear to m
On 2011-05-19 at 09:58 +, Ian Eiloart wrote:
> But no, I don't see a sign of 5.0, or even discussion of what
> desirable radical changes would justify a major version number change.
> It might just be that we run out of minor version numbers!
>From the June 2010 maintainers meet-up summary not
On 2011-05-19 at 11:09 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> I'm mostly familiar with LEMONADE in the context of IMAP. What needs
> doing on the SMTP side?
BDAT, BURL (and thus urlauth validation, a policy engine, etc)
--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim de
Ian Eiloart wrote:
LEMONADE compliance
?
I don't see that what has been published so far has any interaction with
an MTA-only such as Exim at all. Integrated MTA+IMAP, perhaps
Otherwise, the LEMONADE features proposed appear to me to be all in the
IMAP daemon's realm:
- IMAP IDLE for
On Thu, 2011-05-19 at 09:58 +, Ian Eiloart wrote:
> For the core server, LEMONADE compliance might be worth a full version
> bump. Since that requires several distinct changes, it's something
> that could be the end point of several minor version bumps.
I'm mostly familiar with LEMONADE in the
On 18 May 2011, at 15:15, Jakob Hirsch wrote:
> Odhiambo Washington, 2011-05-17 17:46:
>> Yeah, Exim 5 I think is not so far away,
>
> Huh? What makes you think that? I don't see any sign of it.
>
I guess that with 4.76 we're more than three-quarters done! ;^)
But no, I don't see a sign of 5.
Odhiambo Washington, 2011-05-17 17:46:
> Yeah, Exim 5 I think is not so far away,
Huh? What makes you think that? I don't see any sign of it.
--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - h
On 18 May 2011, at 10:31, Ian Eiloart wrote:
> No, really, don't use the LMTP transport. It's much easier to use an SMTP
> Transport and add the line "protocol = lmtp".
>
> You'd imagine that the LMTP transport would use the same code base, but it
> doesn't. The only advantage of the LMTP tran
On 17 May 2011, at 18:09, Mike Cardwell wrote:
> On 17/05/2011 17:21, Odhiambo Washington wrote:
>
>> Any ardent Exim LMTP users around? Pls help.
>
> I've never used LMTP before, but it looks really simple. Take a look at:
>
> http://www.exim.org/exim-html-current/doc/html/spec_html/ch28.html
On Tue, 17 May 2011, Mike Cardwell wrote:
> From: Mike Cardwell
> To: exim-users@exim.org
> Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 18:09:07
> Subject: Re: [exim] Exim 5.x
> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
>
> On 17/05/2011 17:21, Odhiambo Washington wrote:
>
> > Any ardent Exim LMTP use
On 17/05/2011 17:21, Odhiambo Washington wrote:
> Any ardent Exim LMTP users around? Pls help.
I've never used LMTP before, but it looks really simple. Take a look at:
http://www.exim.org/exim-html-current/doc/html/spec_html/ch28.html
I guess you need something like the example on that page, bu
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 18:59, John Burnham wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, Exim 5 I think is not so far away, but that is not why
> > I am writing.
> >
> > Mailman 3 is knocking on the doors and I was just wondering
> > if the Exim
> > gurus have crafted a config that works with it.
> >
> > So far I see the
>
> Yeah, Exim 5 I think is not so far away, but that is not why
> I am writing.
>
> Mailman 3 is knocking on the doors and I was just wondering
> if the Exim
> gurus have crafted a config that works with it.
>
> So far I see there is only support for Postfix. My whole life
> is, has been
> a
> On Tue, 17 May 2011 18:46:41 +0300
> Odhiambo Washington wrote:
> My whole life is, has been
> and will always be Exim.
Same here :-)
--
RMA.
--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this li
Yeah, Exim 5 I think is not so far away, but that is not why I am writing.
Mailman 3 is knocking on the doors and I was just wondering if the Exim
gurus have crafted a config that works with it.
So far I see there is only support for Postfix. My whole life is, has been
and will always be Exim.
G
39 matches
Mail list logo
