>>>>> "NB" == Norbert Bollow <nb@thinkcoach.com> writes:
NB> I think that I've read all of the documentation which comes in those
NB> snapshot tarballs and there seem to be no requests to report bugs in
NB> public there. Ah well, that'll be a topic for a separate bug report :)
I have requested it here many times. Until people are actually helping me
do something, you get what you get. I can't write the software and the
docs and argue over corner-case RFC grey-area compliance all at the same
time. Hence I tend towards the status quo: the behavior is identical to
1.94.4, so it's as good as 1.94.4 and it isn't in any 1.94.4 bug list.
NB> Well, then there is a bug is in that area. In my tests this didn't
NB> happen.
Are you sure it didn't get automatically decoded by the MUA on your end?
Would you care to at least provide a sample?
NB> I still maintain that since Majordomo has begun to take over the work
NB> of an MTA, it has also inherited the responsibility of the MTA to
NB> conform to all internet standards in all pieces of e-mail which it
NB> sends out.
No, it's no more an MTA than MH or Pine are MTAs. The only thing they have
in common with MTAs are that they inject mail via SMTP instead of piping to
sendmail.
NB> If it is possible in any way to trick Majordomo into violating the
NB> standards, and right now we don't have the resources to fix this
NB> problem in a reasonable way, we should at least clearly explain the
NB> problem and potential implications in the BUGS file of the Majordomo
NB> distribution.
Correction: _I_ don't have the resources to fix the "problem".
You seem to know what you want it to say already, so why not provide a
patch?
- J<
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
