+PH/29 Installed patch from the Sieve maintainer that adds the options
+ sieve_useraddress and sieve_subaddress to the redirect router.
+
+PH/30 In these circumstances:
+ . Two addresses routed to the same list of hosts;
+ . First host does not offer TLS;
+ . First host accepts first address;
+ . First host gives temporary error to second address;
+ . Second host offers TLS and a TLS session is established;
+ . Second host accepts second address.
+ Exim incorrectly logged both deliveries with the TLS parameters (cipher
+ and peerdn, if requested) that were in fact used only for the second
+ address.
+
+PH/31 When doing a callout as part of verifying an address, Exim was not paying
+ attention to any local part prefix or suffix that was matched by the
+ router that accepted the address. It now behaves in the same way as it
+ does for delivery: the affixes are removed from the local part unless
+ rcpt_include_affixes is set on the transport.
+
+PH/32 Add the sender address, as F=<...>, to the log line when logging a
+ timeout during the DATA phase of an incoming message.
+
+PH/33 Sieve envelope tests were broken for match types other than :is. I have
+ applied a patch sanctioned by the Sieve maintainer.
+
+PH/34 Change 4.50/80 broke Exim in that it could no longer handle cases where
+ the uid or gid is negative. A case of a negative gid caused this to be
+ noticed. The fix allows for either to be negative.
+
+PH/35 ACL_WHERE_MIME is now declared unconditionally, to avoid too much code
+ clutter, but the tables that are indexed by ACL_WHERE_xxx values had been
+ overlooked.
+
+PH/36 The change PH/12 above was broken. Fixed it.
+
+PH/37 Exim used to check for duplicate addresses in the middle of routing, on
+ the grounds that routing the same address twice would always produce the
+ same answer. This might have been true once, but it is certainly no
+ longer true now. Routing a child address may depend on the previous
+ routing that produced that child. Some complicated redirection strategies
+ went wrong when messages had multiple recipients, and made Exim's
+ behaviour dependent on the order in which the addresses were given.
+
+ I have moved the duplicate checking until after the routing is complete.
+ Exim scans the addresses that are assigned to local and remote
+ transports, and removes any duplicates. This means that more work will be
+ done, as duplicates will always all be routed, but duplicates are
+ presumably rare, so I don't expect this is of any significance.
+
+ For deliveries to pipes, files, and autoreplies, the duplicate checking
+ still happens during the routing process, since they are not going to be
+ routed further.
git://git.exim.org / users / jgh / exim.git / blobdiff