On 2016-03-07 11:24:50 -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > Okay, that sounds reasonable. I would like the get the two additions to > the -E patch in, just to make it usable.
Yes, I think that's necessary. > > I'm attaching 2 patches made by other users and which I've updated > > for the latest changes in the trunk. > > Thanks, Vincent. I'll take a look at those patches. I think you said > you've been using the DNS patch for some time with no problems, is that > right? Yes, I've been using it on all my machines, and with this patch, the FQDN was always correct. And I've just done a specific test comparing the patched version to the unpatched version. With the patched one, the Message-Id (where the FQDN is used) was correct, but not with the unpatched one. -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
