iane at sussex
May 23, 2011, 5:26 AM
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
[Bug 817] Improve exposure of 8bitmime support
[In reply to]
You are on the CC list for the bug.
--- Comment #9 from Ian Eiloart <iane [at] sussex> 2011-05-23 13:26:31 ---
On 22 May 2011, at 08:05, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You reported the bug.
> --- Comment #3 from Andreas Metzler <eximusers [at] downhill> 2011-05-22 08:05:30 ---
> On 2011-05-22 Wolfgang Breyha <wbreyha [at] gmx> wrote:
>> *) check if SMTP server supports 8BITMIME (caseless match, since I already
>> know of servers announcing "8bitmime". *sigh* M$ again)
>> *) yes -> send BODY= as stored
>> *) no -> 8to7 conversion needed
>> *) deactivate use of SIZE=
> s/SIZE=/BODY=/ I guess.
>> *) nothing else yet (except a debug message)
>> *) it has to be activated by defining WITH_8BITMIME=yes in Makefile
>> What it doesn't:
>> *) the 8to7 conversion itself
>> *) a commandline switch is needed to define a submitted message as 8bit
>> *) code is needed to auto detect 8bit body sent as 7bit as sendmail/postfix
>> does. Enforcing WITH_CONTENT_SCAN and modifying acl_mime_scan may be
>> used for that.
> There seems to be an awful amount of added complexity in full RFC 1652
> compliance. /Another/ commandline switch. Working around buggyness in
> the two most important implementations (I understood "as
> sendmail/postfix does" to be a bug.)
Probably not, if Sendmail/Postfix users are happy with their server behaviour.
I think I've come to the conclusion (based on discussions on exim-users) that
1) Not downgrading is safe, provided you don't use BODY= when 8BITMIME is not
2) There may be clients that are more efficient when 8BITMIME is advertised,
but we don't know.
> I am not quite sure what the point of the patch is?
It probably means that we can advice users to enable 8BITMIME, and we can claim
that Exim is as 8BITMIME capable as Postfix and Sendmail.
> a) Work in progress. 8to7 conversion will be added giving us RFC 1652
> compliance. And only them will the code be added to a release.
> b) Try out without complete support and see what breaks.
We already have incomplete support. I think these changes improve that, and
they're a step forward.
> cu andreas
> Configure bugmail: http://bugs.exim.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.exim.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##