On Sun, 2012-10-28 at 17:00 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote: > Breaking compatibility? Could you explain why you think it would break compatibility? AFAIU, mboxrd just means that you also quote lines like >From foo to >>From foo (and the same for more trailing ">").
I wouldn't see how an existing client couldn't cope with that. And with respect to signature breaking (of non aware clients)... it just moves the level where breakage occurs one > "down". > Over my dead body. I hope not... who should maintain postfix then!? ;-) > However, providing a new > parameter that is BACKWARDS-COMPATIBLE BY DEFAULT would be a > possibility In both cases, such a patch,.. or no change at all, I think one should at least add some text to local(8), telling that this is mboxo and what issues it has. > > If it's just the time needed to write a patch, I'd guess it should be > > very simple and could try to make one. > Anyone can write code. Writing code that works is harder. Well obviously, writing a patch, especially when you'd prefer one that makes this an option, is some effort for those who never looked at the postfix code before a lot. And when you wouldn't accept it anyway... I wouldn't want to put time into it just for nothing ;) Cheers, Chris.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
