I'd like the recursion limit raised from 20 to 50 by default if there's no objections. Thanks in advance. -- -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
On 2010-05-31 at 21:24 -0700, Marc Perkel wrote: > I'd like the recursion limit raised from 20 to 50 by default if there's > no objections. Thanks in advance. I object. No argument has been provided for why this is needed, except by you, and your mechanism is fundamentally unsafe. All that's needed to break your setup with a limit of 50 is more URLs in a message body. I will not be a party to you deluding yourself with feel-good improvements. Fix your setup, or accept the limitations of it which were pointed out to you, by me, when you first talked about it. -Phil -- -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=967 Phil Pennock <exim-dev <at> spodhuis.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |exim-dev <at> spodhuis.org --- Comment #8 from Phil Pennock <exim-dev <at> spodhuis.org> 2010-06-01 12:24:40 --- I've written the NewStuff entry for this change. On the second attempt, I think I have it correct. Erk. If anyone wishes to test, the DNS node txttest.test.globnix.net contains two TXT records, per Simon's example. Amusingly, my warning/reminder in NewStuff that DNS doesn't guarantee ordering was validated on my very first test. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.exim.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email -- -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
On Mon, 31 May 2010, Marc Perkel wrote: > I'd like the recursion limit raised from 20 to 50 by default if there's > no objections. Thanks in advance. I suggest the limit stays the same, as increasing it may cause problems with existing installations depending on it (or without resources to cope with the drastic increase). Instead, I suggest Marc supplies a patch that makes this tweakable at a build-time, so he can incorporate his preferred value into his own build processes. Jethro. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jethro R Binks Computing Officer, IT Services, University Of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK -- -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
On 1 Jun 2010, at 10:04, Jethro R Binks wrote: > > On Mon, 31 May 2010, Marc Perkel wrote: > >> I'd like the recursion limit raised from 20 to 50 by default if there's >> no objections. Thanks in advance. > > I suggest the limit stays the same, as increasing it may cause problems > with existing installations depending on it (or without resources to cope > with the drastic increase). > > Instead, I suggest Marc supplies a patch that makes this tweakable at a > build-time, so he can incorporate his preferred value into his own build > processes. Good suggestion going forward (could this be made a run-time config?), but even with a patch its not going to make 4.72 In any case a bugzilla entry should be opened for tracking. Nigel. -- [ Nigel Metheringham Nigel.Metheringham <at> InTechnology.com ] [ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opinion/policy - ] -- -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##(Continue reading)
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Nigel Metheringham wrote: > On 1 Jun 2010, at 10:04, Jethro R Binks wrote: > > > > On Mon, 31 May 2010, Marc Perkel wrote: > > > >> I'd like the recursion limit raised from 20 to 50 by default if there's > >> no objections. Thanks in advance. > > > > I suggest the limit stays the same, as increasing it may cause problems > > with existing installations depending on it (or without resources to cope > > with the drastic increase). > > > > Instead, I suggest Marc supplies a patch that makes this tweakable at a > > build-time, so he can incorporate his preferred value into his own build > > processes. > > Good suggestion going forward (could this be made a run-time config?), > but even with a patch its not going to make 4.72 I agree; far to late to bring to the 4.72 table. > In any case a bugzilla entry should be opened for tracking. Good idea. Marc, file your request at http://bugs.exim.org/ if this issue is important to you. Jethro. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(Continue reading)
------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=992 Summary: Bug in $h_subject: decoding Product: Exim Version: 4.71 Platform: x86 OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: bug Priority: medium Component: String expansion AssignedTo: nigel <at> exim.org ReportedBy: lexore <at> gmail.com CC: exim-dev <at> exim.org Exim do not decode $h_subject, when it coded in quoted-printable form. And do not decode $h_subject (or decode only last line), when $h_subject is multiline and coded in base64 form. I found it, when i write a script, which work with variables: h_to, rh_to, h_from, rh_from, h_subject, rh_subject. h_to and h_from correctly decoded from quoted-printable, or base64, but h_subject - not. I don't tested h_to and h_from for multiline base64. I write settings: acl_smtp_data = acl_data(Continue reading)
Hello, Jethro R Binks wrote: > On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Nigel Metheringham wrote: >> On 1 Jun 2010, at 10:04, Jethro R Binks wrote: >>> On Mon, 31 May 2010, Marc Perkel wrote: >>>> I'd like the recursion limit raised from 20 to 50 by default if there's >>>> no objections. Thanks in advance. >>> I suggest the limit stays the same, as increasing it may cause problems >>> with existing installations depending on it (or without resources to cope >>> with the drastic increase). >>> Instead, I suggest Marc supplies a patch that makes this tweakable at a >>> build-time, so he can incorporate his preferred value into his own build >>> processes. >> Good suggestion going forward (could this be made a run-time config?), >> but even with a patch its not going to make 4.72 > I agree; far to late to bring to the 4.72 table. While I didn't check the code, I would assume that it's possible to change a "2" into a "5" before compiling. Thus this looks like a far too disproportinal change to me, both for Marc as for others who would have to adapt build framework, code and documentation. Besides, this is a good example why the current development status of exim isn't as problematic as it has been stated here before (by few individuals). Exim is stable and functional. Everything that might be needed in addition is more or less questionable and there are many reasons for objecting its implementation. In addition to that, there are people who do care for implementing fixes and the still outstanding documentation.(Continue reading)
------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=992 Phil Pennock <exim-dev <at> spodhuis.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |exim-dev <at> spodhuis.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #1 from Phil Pennock <exim-dev <at> spodhuis.org> 2010-06-03 02:46:24 --- This looks very much like a problem we've seen reported from Russian users before: namely, that there's some software common in your part of the world which is encoding quoted-printable text which is too long and violates RFC 2047. If you add this to the main section of your Exim configuration: check_rfc2047_length = false does the problem go away? Thanks, -Phil -- -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.exim.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email(Continue reading)
------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=992 igor <lexore <at> gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED Resolution| |INVALID --- Comment #2 from igor <lexore <at> gmail.com> 2010-06-03 07:00:47 --- God-damned! It works. Now all subjects are decoded. Thanks. I am sorry for a false bug. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.exim.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email -- -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
RSS Feed30 | |
|---|---|
36 | |
56 | |
30 | |
27 | |
57 | |
52 | |
61 | |
69 | |
32 | |
63 | |
112 | |
241 | |
71 | |
38 | |
17 | |
35 | |
7 | |
39 | |
44 | |
59 | |
44 | |
7 | |
15 | |
62 | |
14 | |
44 | |
137 | |
150 | |
194 | |
14 | |
14 | |
56 | |
15 | |
52 | |
110 | |
59 | |
10 | |
17 | |
18 | |
65 | |
69 | |
163 | |
176 | |
21 | |
26 | |
30 | |
60 | |
15 | |
25 | |
25 | |
42 | |
29 | |
43 | |
29 | |
32 | |
61 | |
75 | |
47 | |
45 | |
80 | |
31 | |
33 | |
64 | |
116 | |
14 | |
26 | |
43 | |
25 | |
69 | |
63 | |
85 | |
31 | |
47 | |
67 | |
142 | |
119 | |
80 | |
72 | |
169 | |
129 | |
89 | |
66 | |
64 | |
26 | |
22 | |
43 | |
43 | |
42 | |
53 | |
60 | |
40 | |
136 | |
29 | |
77 | |
157 | |
42 | |
50 | |
127 | |
34 | |
8 | |
9 | |
37 | |
8 | |
9 | |
15 | |
23 | |
23 | |
44 |
