Mailing List Archive

Exim 4.80 RC5 uploaded
I have uploaded Exim 4.80 RC5 to:
ftp://ftp.exim.org/pub/exim/exim4/test/

There is an attempt to resolve the compiler issues on some versions of
Linux, a fix for OpenBSD's resolver library not having an expected
typedef, and fixes to work on older OpenSSL libraries which lack SNI
support. Everything else changed is documentation and test suite, so
I'm going to permit myself a little optimism that this will be the last
RC and that the final release can be cut late in the weekend, to await
people on Monday morning.

As an experiment, this time there are three versions of each file;
bzip2, gzip and lzip. If you like lzip and want it to stay, please let
us know. The main distribution is only 8% smaller than bzip2 (28%
smaller than gzip), but perhaps this will really add up. I'm inclined
to put out the 4.80 release with lzip and see what the reaction is.

I'm also thinking that 4.80 might be the last release with SHA1
checksums in the release mails and that afterwards we'll stick to just
SHA256. If there's a reason this would cause you problems, please do
let me know; the decision isn't by any means fixed yet.

The ChangeLog/NewStuff/README.UPDATING can be reviewed at:

http://git.exim.org/exim.git/blob/exim-4_80_RC5:/src/README.UPDATING
http://git.exim.org/exim.git/blob/exim-4_80_RC5:/doc/doc-txt/NewStuff
http://git.exim.org/exim.git/blob/exim-4_80_RC5:/doc/doc-txt/ChangeLog

The files are signed with the PGP key 0x3903637F, which has a uid
"Phil Pennock <pdp@exim.org>". Please use your own discretion in
assessing what trust paths you might have to this uid.

Checksums below. Detached PGP signatures in .asc files are available
alongside the tarballs.

Please report issues in reply to this email, on exim-users.

Thank you for your testing and feedback,
-Phil Pennock, pp The Exim Maintainers.

SHA256(exim-4.80_RC5.tar.bz2)= d0cb88172a3aff24873c82116f9d649e736ae211c4341b3ed4b13fde1eeb98f5
SHA256(exim-4.80_RC5.tar.gz)= ba059ed0416451dadfa887a4f5e083744fa86300a2d6b44be7900ba461747e50
SHA256(exim-4.80_RC5.tar.lz)= 0f7d0310e378ccbafce4e44572b6baf81f7117f78c565b72eb3f0f6a9e9c7d1e
SHA256(exim-html-4.80_RC5.tar.bz2)= ad8705dc69c50fec684a3196ecf1447466f40432216fe92970a47a62757d1030
SHA256(exim-html-4.80_RC5.tar.gz)= fc8a758a93c60bfbdeca3b79509e9345d9f1370d596b19c73ffc659b1d29cd48
SHA256(exim-html-4.80_RC5.tar.lz)= e301b5b914ffc14a6da22a5225016e769b0fecdf6f6c0b7a727222c6bc7b9c25
SHA256(exim-pdf-4.80_RC5.tar.bz2)= ad42d1ecd7a70d31dada5421397bb06fe4d5815c24b78ba5a746f8ba6b6bcb92
SHA256(exim-pdf-4.80_RC5.tar.gz)= fc1823df99e85a5c100adf72fa4aa43cc850fa44596ee2add03e192ffb206e4d
SHA256(exim-pdf-4.80_RC5.tar.lz)= 67fdccd90b8d34520803ccecd6868944b611937a64a1bbd4dbfbf2302faf2672
SHA256(exim-postscript-4.80_RC5.tar.bz2)= a562a1090a4ef8b996f823c6322b36a2308ac1842aa64c4320966b668f2aa172
SHA256(exim-postscript-4.80_RC5.tar.gz)= 1ba82befe5694d87bae43e71c7e253fcb18ba4ae903963674abeb8e8cf7d0b9e
SHA256(exim-postscript-4.80_RC5.tar.lz)= 7f362aacccf4226efe84f0b1c6d0d421eb164f9398b8257aca79b53eb7e6b7ed

SHA1(exim-4.80_RC5.tar.bz2)= 9e080663ac5586e6a6422f8717acceab6343fa8a
SHA1(exim-4.80_RC5.tar.gz)= 30f9741f0b9317cdac3e201539cbd0e88ac9839b
SHA1(exim-4.80_RC5.tar.lz)= 6878d8825027d39e257d6c3c42a29ca03e21590e
SHA1(exim-html-4.80_RC5.tar.bz2)= 64c2f1ad74f48a2ec4bb59b0fc5c126ba52f605d
SHA1(exim-html-4.80_RC5.tar.gz)= 78ec85986c941420e9aa4bfef1008c1fa8797b22
SHA1(exim-html-4.80_RC5.tar.lz)= 8f8eaadaa9a638eb660a4daa9f8269c99bf829f2
SHA1(exim-pdf-4.80_RC5.tar.bz2)= f077da301168f3114adb524d7a0c0c6782f5f2d4
SHA1(exim-pdf-4.80_RC5.tar.gz)= 3f981957a4e26b174fd6fbadc56f789d3badbdab
SHA1(exim-pdf-4.80_RC5.tar.lz)= 6d4d430e2f52dad30a861d22ace2b21d37ba2149
SHA1(exim-postscript-4.80_RC5.tar.bz2)= 543bb6cf8880e92bbf02696f0ab0fc1b3d64a3d1
SHA1(exim-postscript-4.80_RC5.tar.gz)= 6c9c1dbd547b22a4975f42b7e46e2d98b8404e2f
SHA1(exim-postscript-4.80_RC5.tar.lz)= 3d0f14a99275a513a270d5517dd39abc7f6e6735
Re: Exim 4.80 RC5 uploaded [ In reply to ]
On 5/24/2012 12:32 AM, Phil Pennock wrote:
> I have uploaded Exim 4.80 RC5 to:
> ftp://ftp.exim.org/pub/exim/exim4/test/
>
> There is an attempt to resolve the compiler issues on some versions of
> Linux,

It works with no need for extra parameters to gcc where before it needed
the "-fgnu89-inline -std=gnu99".

> As an experiment, this time there are three versions of each file;
> bzip2, gzip and lzip.

.lz is not being used since .xz came up, and is the more common new format.
--
René Berber


--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
Re: Exim 4.80 RC5 uploaded [ In reply to ]
On 24 May 2012 07:16, René Berber <r.berber@computer.org> wrote:
> On 5/24/2012 12:32 AM, Phil Pennock wrote:
>>
>> I have uploaded Exim 4.80 RC5 to:
>>         ftp://ftp.exim.org/pub/exim/exim4/test/
>>
>> There is an attempt to resolve the compiler issues on some versions of
>> Linux,
>
>
> It works with no need for extra parameters to gcc where before it needed the
> "-fgnu89-inline -std=gnu99".
>
>
Also OK with previous problem RHEL 5 64 bit system

--
Alan Thew

--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
Re: Exim 4.80 RC5 uploaded [ In reply to ]
On 24 May 2012 06:32, Phil Pennock <pdp@exim.org> wrote:
> I have uploaded Exim 4.80 RC5 to:
>        ftp://ftp.exim.org/pub/exim/exim4/test/
>
> There is an attempt to resolve the compiler issues on some versions of
> Linux, a fix for OpenBSD's resolver library not having an expected
> typedef, and fixes to work on older OpenSSL libraries which lack SNI
> support.  Everything else changed is documentation and test suite, so
> I'm going to permit myself a little optimism that this will be the last
> RC and that the final release can be cut late in the weekend, to await
> people on Monday morning.
>
> As an experiment, this time there are three versions of each file;
> bzip2, gzip and lzip.  If you like lzip and want it to stay, please let
> us know.  The main distribution is only 8% smaller than bzip2 (28%
> smaller than gzip), but perhaps this will really add up.  I'm inclined
> to put out the 4.80 release with lzip and see what the reaction is.
>
> I'm also thinking that 4.80 might be the last release with SHA1
> checksums in the release mails and that afterwards we'll stick to just
> SHA256.  If there's a reason this would cause you problems, please do
> let me know; the decision isn't by any means fixed yet.
>
> The ChangeLog/NewStuff/README.UPDATING can be reviewed at:
>
>        http://git.exim.org/exim.git/blob/exim-4_80_RC5:/src/README.UPDATING
>        http://git.exim.org/exim.git/blob/exim-4_80_RC5:/doc/doc-txt/NewStuff
>        http://git.exim.org/exim.git/blob/exim-4_80_RC5:/doc/doc-txt/ChangeLog
>

Hi has anyone tried with an old gcc (2.95)? On Solaris 2.9/gcc 2.95.2

I get:

gcc pdkim.c
pdkim.c: In function `pdkim_feed_finish':
pdkim.c:1389: parse error before `*'
pdkim.c:1390: `hdrs' undeclared (first use in this function)
pdkim.c:1390: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
pdkim.c:1390: for each function it appears in.)
gmake[2]: *** [pdkim.o] Error 1

Thanks

--
Alan Thew

--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
Re: Exim 4.80 RC5 uploaded [ In reply to ]
On Thu, 24 May 2012, A J Thew wrote:

> From: A J Thew <aj.thew@gmail.com>
> To: exim-users@exim.org
> Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 09:59:27
> Subject: Re: [exim] Exim 4.80 RC5 uploaded

...

> Hi has anyone tried with an old gcc (2.95)? On Solaris 2.9/gcc 2.95.2
>
> I get:
>
> gcc pdkim.c
> pdkim.c: In function `pdkim_feed_finish':
> pdkim.c:1389: parse error before `*'
> pdkim.c:1390: `hdrs' undeclared (first use in this function)
> pdkim.c:1390: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
> pdkim.c:1390: for each function it appears in.)
> gmake[2]: *** [pdkim.o] Error 1

Just tried this. Seen this before with gcc 2.95.2. It *really*
likes to have the declarations before any of the executable
statements. So apply this simple patch:

*** pdkim.c.orig Thu May 24 04:43:20 2012
--- pdkim.c Thu May 24 10:41:22 2012
***************
*** 1383,1392 ****
char *b = strdup(sig->headernames);
char *p = b;
char *q = NULL;
if (b == NULL) return PDKIM_ERR_OOM;

/* clear tags */
- pdkim_stringlist *hdrs = ctx->headers;
while (hdrs != NULL) {
hdrs->tag = 0;
hdrs = hdrs->next;
--- 1383,1392 ----
char *b = strdup(sig->headernames);
char *p = b;
char *q = NULL;
+ pdkim_stringlist *hdrs = ctx->headers;
if (b == NULL) return PDKIM_ERR_OOM;

/* clear tags */
while (hdrs != NULL) {
hdrs->tag = 0;
hdrs = hdrs->next;
--
Dennis Davis, BUCS, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK
D.H.Davis@bath.ac.uk Phone: +44 1225 386101

--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
Re: [exim-dev] Exim 4.80 RC5 uploaded [ In reply to ]
Hi!

Phil Pennock wrote, on 24.05.2012 07:32:
> I have uploaded Exim 4.80 RC5 to:
> ftp://ftp.exim.org/pub/exim/exim4/test/

I tried to activate RC5 and fail badly with
> May 24 15:58:00 moorhuhn exim[31647]: [1\2] 2012-05-24 15:58:00 sasl_cram_md5 authenticator (CRAM-MD5):
> May 24 15:58:00 moorhuhn exim[31647]: [2/2] Cyrus SASL SSF 141300024 not supported by Exim
if I try to use SASL_PLAIN auth? The exactly same config works with 4.77.

Any ideas what goes wrong?

Greetings, Wolfgang
--
Wolfgang Breyha <wbreyha@gmx.net> | http://www.blafasel.at/
Vienna University Computer Center | Austria


--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
Re: Exim 4.80 RC5 uploaded [ In reply to ]
On 24 May 2012 10:48, Dennis Davis <D.H.Davis@bath.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2012, A J Thew wrote:
>
>> From: A J Thew <aj.thew@gmail.com>
>> To: exim-users@exim.org
>> Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 09:59:27
>> Subject: Re: [exim] Exim 4.80 RC5 uploaded
>
> ...
>
>> Hi has anyone tried with an old gcc (2.95)? On Solaris 2.9/gcc 2.95.2
>>
>> I get:
>>
>> gcc pdkim.c
>> pdkim.c: In function `pdkim_feed_finish':
>> pdkim.c:1389: parse error before `*'
>> pdkim.c:1390: `hdrs' undeclared (first use in this function)
>> pdkim.c:1390: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
>> pdkim.c:1390: for each function it appears in.)
>> gmake[2]: *** [pdkim.o] Error 1
>
> Just tried this.  Seen this before with gcc 2.95.2.  It *really*
> likes to have the declarations before any of the executable
> statements.  So apply this simple patch:
>
> *** pdkim.c.orig        Thu May 24 04:43:20 2012
> --- pdkim.c     Thu May 24 10:41:22 2012
> ***************
> *** 1383,1392 ****
>        char *b = strdup(sig->headernames);
>        char *p = b;
>        char *q = NULL;
>        if (b == NULL) return PDKIM_ERR_OOM;
>
>        /* clear tags */
> -       pdkim_stringlist *hdrs = ctx->headers;
>        while (hdrs != NULL) {
>          hdrs->tag = 0;
>          hdrs = hdrs->next;
> --- 1383,1392 ----
>        char *b = strdup(sig->headernames);
>        char *p = b;
>        char *q = NULL;
> +       pdkim_stringlist *hdrs = ctx->headers;
>        if (b == NULL) return PDKIM_ERR_OOM;
>
>        /* clear tags */
>        while (hdrs != NULL) {
>          hdrs->tag = 0;
>          hdrs = hdrs->next;

Great. Many thanks

--
Alan Thew

--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
Re: Exim 4.80 RC5 uploaded [ In reply to ]
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:57 AM, A J Thew <aj.thew@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I have uploaded Exim 4.80 RC5 to:
>>> There is an attempt to resolve the compiler issues on some versions of
>>> Linux,
>> It works with no need for extra parameters to gcc where before it needed the
>> "-fgnu89-inline -std=gnu99".
> Also OK with previous problem RHEL 5 64 bit system

Confirmed for CentOS 5.x that I no longer need the extra CFLAGS.
Built and deployed RC5 on one of my production servers. RC4 ran for a
full day with no issues to report. I will yell if there are any issues
that pop up with RC5.

To the other poster, I don't use SASL_PLAIN so I am unable to offer
any confirmation of the issue.

...Todd
--
Always code as if the guy who ends up maintaining your code will be a
violent psychopath who knows where you live. -- Martin Golding

--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
Re: Exim 4.80 RC5 uploaded [ In reply to ]
I've put that change into the git tree:-

http://git.exim.org/exim.git/commitdiff/a3c1395faebdb088bcef9cdb55bb42a791433ccd

--
[ Nigel Metheringham ------------------------------ nigel@dotdot.it ]
[ Ellipsis Intangible Technologies ]


--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
Re: [exim-dev] Exim 4.80 RC5 uploaded [ In reply to ]
Wolfgang Breyha wrote, on 24.05.2012 16:11:
> I tried to activate RC5 and fail badly with
>> May 24 15:58:00 moorhuhn exim[31647]: [1\2] 2012-05-24 15:58:00 sasl_cram_md5 authenticator (CRAM-MD5):
>> May 24 15:58:00 moorhuhn exim[31647]: [2/2] Cyrus SASL SSF 141300024 not supported by Exim
> if I try to use SASL_PLAIN auth? The exactly same config works with 4.77.

Sorry, not SASL_PLAIN. It's CRAM-MD5 actually, or cyrus-sasl at all if TLS/SSL
is in use. Source of src/auth/cyrus_sasl.c changed and Changelog mentions
that, but not that it may break existing configurations? Bug or feature? ;-)

Only a wild guess reading the source:
src/auths/cyrus_sasl.c:259ff
sets EXTERNAL_SFF to the value of tls_bits if TLS/SSL is in use.

And in
:410ff
if (negotiated_ssf > 0)
is checked... does cyrus-sasl return tls_bits here and exim fails selflarting
itself?

Greetings, Wolfgang
--
Wolfgang Breyha <wbreyha@gmx.net> | http://www.blafasel.at/
Vienna University Computer Center | Austria


--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
Re: [exim-dev] Exim 4.80 RC5 uploaded [ In reply to ]
On 2012-05-24 17:50, Wolfgang Breyha wrote:
> Wolfgang Breyha wrote, on 24.05.2012 16:11:
>> I tried to activate RC5 and fail badly with
>>> May 24 15:58:00 moorhuhn exim[31647]: [1\2] 2012-05-24 15:58:00 sasl_cram_md5 authenticator (CRAM-MD5):
>>> May 24 15:58:00 moorhuhn exim[31647]: [2/2] Cyrus SASL SSF 141300024 not supported by Exim

I think, I found the cause...
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1254

Greetings, Wolfgang
--
Wolfgang Breyha <wbreyha@gmx.net> | http://www.blafasel.at/
Vienna University Computer Center | Austria

--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
Re: [exim-dev] Exim 4.80 RC5 uploaded [ In reply to ]
On 2012-05-24 at 23:08 +0200, Wolfgang Breyha wrote:
> On 2012-05-24 17:50, Wolfgang Breyha wrote:
> > Wolfgang Breyha wrote, on 24.05.2012 16:11:
> >> I tried to activate RC5 and fail badly with
> >>> May 24 15:58:00 moorhuhn exim[31647]: [1\2] 2012-05-24 15:58:00 sasl_cram_md5 authenticator (CRAM-MD5):
> >>> May 24 15:58:00 moorhuhn exim[31647]: [2/2] Cyrus SASL SSF 141300024 not supported by Exim
>
> I think, I found the cause...
> http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1254

Fixed, thanks, and sorry.

I use SASL extensively and had expected that if I broke this I'd have
noticed, but had forgotten that since I wrote the heimdal_gssapi auth
driver I didn't have any Cyrus SASL drivers left, and I haven't yet
figured out a decent test for this to go in the test suite.

What happens is that SASL, in some mechanisms, is able to negotiate a
"protection layer". Actually using SASL protection layers is not very
widely supported by most software, because the world moved on and uses
SSL/TLS instead.

I adjusted the Cyrus SASL integration to tell Cyrus about external
protection from TLS and to check afterwards to see if SASL had
negotiated its own protection. If SASL has, Exim declares a failure
because Exim won't do the wrap/unwrap needed.

Wolfgang's fix is correct and has been applied.

-Phil

--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
Re: [exim-dev] Exim 4.80 RC5 uploaded [ In reply to ]
On 2012-05-24 at 16:11 +0200, Wolfgang Breyha wrote:
> Phil Pennock wrote, on 24.05.2012 07:32:
> > I have uploaded Exim 4.80 RC5 to:
> > ftp://ftp.exim.org/pub/exim/exim4/test/
>
> I tried to activate RC5 and fail badly with
> > May 24 15:58:00 moorhuhn exim[31647]: [1\2] 2012-05-24 15:58:00 sasl_cram_md5 authenticator (CRAM-MD5):
> > May 24 15:58:00 moorhuhn exim[31647]: [2/2] Cyrus SASL SSF 141300024 not supported by Exim

By the way, depending upon how your group memberships and sasldb2 file
ownership are set up, you might check the Exim Specification for an
example "cyrusless_crammd5" which shows how to combine Exim's cram_md5
driver with the new dbmjz lookup type added in 4.80, to access the
password from sasldb2 directly.

-Phil

--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
Re: Exim 4.80 RC5 uploaded [ In reply to ]
On 2012-05-24 at 01:16 -0500, René Berber wrote:
> On 5/24/2012 12:32 AM, Phil Pennock wrote:
> > As an experiment, this time there are three versions of each file;
> > bzip2, gzip and lzip.
>
> .lz is not being used since .xz came up, and is the more common new format.

I've had private mail on this topic too, making it the most contested
feature of the new Exim release. That ... says something.

GnuTLS and some other projects now ship only .xz and .lz tarballs, with
the .lz being smaller.

I'm not going to add *two* new compression formats. It's not even
certain that I'll add one.

When looking, I picked the one which gave smaller files for Exim's main
source tarball. The only reason to use Yet Another compression format
is to have smaller resulting files.

If we add a new compression format, it will be the one which compresses
better. Compatibility is not an issue, since gzip/bzip2 provide
compatibility. (Licensing would be an issue if any contender were
antagonistic to the GPL, which Exim uses).

I note from Wikipedia that coreutils uses .gz and .xz and the Linux
kernel supports .xz, but when I look at Linus' tree, I see that lzma is
handled too. The gentoo claim is about .lzma being replaced by .xz, but
.lzma is not the same as .lz. My source for this claim is:

http://www.nongnu.org/lzip/lzip.html

-Phil

--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
Re: Exim 4.80 RC5 uploaded [ In reply to ]
Phil Pennock wrote:
> I've had private mail on this topic too, making it the most contested
> feature of the new Exim release. That ... says something.

Yay - those bikesheds won't paint themselves!

> GnuTLS and some other projects now ship only .xz and .lz tarballs, with
> the .lz being smaller.

This feels sort of 90s with everyone suddenly using their own packaging
formats before going to the tar.gz standard.

> I'm not going to add *two* new compression formats. It's not even
> certain that I'll add one.

My feeling is that neither of these are compelling in any way - yes they
are better than bz2 - just - but it would take 31 downloads of that data
in .lz format to save the size of one bz2 download.

Heres a google docs SS with the figures for the RC5 distribution set:-

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0Ah5Bo78-JMXqdFJKeHhnSzZvZFk5RUQ1LUlDVEhvaGc&output=html
or smaller URL
http://goo.gl/4FqSF

> When looking, I picked the one which gave smaller files for Exim's main
> source tarball. The only reason to use Yet Another compression format
> is to have smaller resulting files.

I confirm lz as smaller than xz and both smaller than bz2 -

> If we add a new compression format, it will be the one which compresses
> better. Compatibility is not an issue, since gzip/bzip2 provide
> compatibility. (Licensing would be an issue if any contender were
> antagonistic to the GPL, which Exim uses).

My feeling is lets keep out of this particular fight until a winner has
emerged. bz2 was a clear winner over gz, but neither of the new ones
are compelling on size. If they become compelling for other reasons
then we can go for it then... For now I'd prefer to watch from the
sidelines and not support either.

But this is all a personal opinion...

Nigel.
--
[ Nigel Metheringham ------------------------------ nigel@dotdot.it ]
[ Ellipsis Intangible Technologies ]


--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
Re: Exim 4.80 RC5 uploaded [ In reply to ]
On 2012-05-25 at 12:26 +0100, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
> My feeling is lets keep out of this particular fight until a winner has
> emerged.

Yeah, I wasn't aware there was a fight and so naively picked the better
option.

I'll toggle the default value of the variable in the build script now
and disable .lz generation.

-Phil

--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/