>>>>> "DW" == Dave Wolfe <dwolfe@risc.sps.mot.com> writes:
DW> What I had in mind was the fact that Mj2 has the concept of defaults
DW> (for several field types) which are set independently of the current
DW> command being parsed.
Well, sort of. Right now the only defaults are the password and the list.
The password doesn't introduce any kind of ambiguity, because the password
is (and always has been) passed "out of band". (Pretend that the parser
sticks a virtual "approve passwd" in front of every command when the
default password is set.
Now the default list is more complicated because the list has always been
passed in as an argument and we relied on heuristics to figure out when it
was absent and needed to be supplied.
There are no other defaults, although there _could_ be some kind of default
address.
DW> (Is the ambiguity only when parsing 1.9x-style requests, or am I
DW> misremembering things again?)
Well, the email (really, text) parser only deals with 1.9x style requests.
That is, the only interface to 1.9x that there was has been preserved, with
extensions.
DW> Nevertheless, the question remains, is it acceptable to change the
DW> allowable command syntax at this late date?
Well, it depends. I'd be interested to know just how many people send
commands with the list included to the -request addresses.
- J<
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
