gmane.mail.exim.devel archive
419 archived articles, newest first (page 2 of 5). Latest articles →
Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: DMARC always return norecord (Accept) for any police in subdomain bacause bug in opendmarc (#3090) (Issue #3231)
Sat, 06 Jun 2026 15:43:48 +0100Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: DMARC always return norecord (Accept) for any police in subdomain bacause bug in opendmarc (#3090) (Issue #3231)
Sat, 06 Jun 2026 15:15:22 +0100Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: DMARC always return norecord (Accept) for any police in subdomain bacause bug in opendmarc (#3090) (Issue #3231)
Sat, 06 Jun 2026 15:15:23 +0100Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: Exim 4.99.4: Possible duplicate Gmail deliveries caused by SMTP/TLS session completion issue (Issue #3229)
Sat, 06 Jun 2026 12:26:27 +0100Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: DMARC always return norecord (Accept) for any police in subdomain bacause bug in opendmarc (#3090) (Issue #3231)
Sat, 06 Jun 2026 09:44:46 +0100Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: DMARC always return norecord (Accept) for any police in subdomain bacause bug in opendmarc (#3090) (Issue #3231)
Sat, 06 Jun 2026 09:44:46 +0100[exim/exim] [Bug]: DMARC always return norecord (Accept) for any police in subdomain bacause bug in opendmarc (#3090) (Issue #3231)
Sat, 06 Jun 2026 07:30:46 +0100Re: [exim/exim] [RFE] DMARCbis (Issue #3230)
Sat, 06 Jun 2026 07:25:26 +0100Possibly not relevant Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: Exim 4.99.4: Possible duplicate Gmail deliveries caused by SMTP/TLS session completion issue (Issue #3229)
Fri, 5 Jun 2026 22:38:32 +0100 (BST)[exim/exim] [RFE] DMARCbis (Issue #3230)
Fri, 05 Jun 2026 20:06:08 +0100Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: Exim 4.99.4: Possible duplicate Gmail deliveries caused by SMTP/TLS session completion issue (Issue #3229)
Thu, 04 Jun 2026 15:35:09 +0100Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: Exim 4.99.4: Possible duplicate Gmail deliveries caused by SMTP/TLS session completion issue (Issue #3229)
Thu, 04 Jun 2026 13:06:09 +0100Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: Exim 4.99.4: Possible duplicate Gmail deliveries caused by SMTP/TLS session completion issue (Issue #3229)
Thu, 4 Jun 2026 13:00:50 +0100Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: Exim 4.99.4: Possible duplicate Gmail deliveries caused by SMTP/TLS session completion issue (Issue #3229)
Thu, 04 Jun 2026 12:52:24 +0100Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: Exim 4.99.4: Possible duplicate Gmail deliveries caused by SMTP/TLS session completion issue (Issue #3229)
Thu, 04 Jun 2026 12:35:13 +0100Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: Exim 4.99.4: Possible duplicate Gmail deliveries caused by SMTP/TLS session completion issue (Issue #3229)
Thu, 04 Jun 2026 12:13:52 +0100Re: Exim 4.99.4: Possible duplicate Gmail deliveries caused by SMTP/TLS session completion issue (Issue #3229)
Thu, 4 Jun 2026 12:58:42 +0300Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: Exim 4.99.4: Possible duplicate Gmail deliveries caused by SMTP/TLS session completion issue (Issue #3229)
Thu, 04 Jun 2026 10:47:48 +0100Re: mailing lists links and archive
Thu, 4 Jun 2026 10:22:46 +0200Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: Exim 4.99.4: Possible duplicate Gmail deliveries caused by SMTP/TLS session completion issue (Issue #3229)
Thu, 04 Jun 2026 06:49:08 +0100mailing lists links and archive
Thu, 4 Jun 2026 07:48:00 +0300Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: Exim 4.99.4: Possible duplicate Gmail deliveries caused by SMTP/TLS session completion issue (Issue #3229)
Thu, 04 Jun 2026 01:15:20 +0100[exim/exim] [Bug]: Exim 4.99.4: Possible duplicate Gmail deliveries caused by SMTP/TLS session completion issue (Issue #3229)
Wed, 03 Jun 2026 23:06:37 +0100Re: [exim/exim] CVE-2026-45185 seems to be unexploitable. (Issue #3225)
Thu, 28 May 2026 23:45:16 +0100Re: [exim/exim] CVE-2026-45185 seems to be unexploitable. (Issue #3225)
Thu, 28 May 2026 23:45:16 +0100Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: segfault in `daemon-accept-delivery` when delivering as mail relay (Issue #3228)
Thu, 28 May 2026 23:41:46 +0100Re: [exim/exim] Typo in spec.xfpt#L7062: nunbered instead of numbered (Issue #3217)
Thu, 28 May 2026 23:31:09 +0100Re: [exim/exim] Typo in spec.xfpt#L7062: nunbered instead of numbered (Issue #3217)
Thu, 28 May 2026 23:31:14 +0100Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: segfault in `daemon-accept-delivery` when delivering as mail relay (Issue #3228)
Thu, 28 May 2026 22:46:36 +0100Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: segfault in `daemon-accept-delivery` when delivering as mail relay (Issue #3228)
Thu, 28 May 2026 22:41:03 +0100Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: segfault in `daemon-accept-delivery` when delivering as mail relay (Issue #3228)
Thu, 28 May 2026 22:40:31 +0100Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: segfault in `daemon-accept-delivery` when delivering as mail relay (Issue #3228)
Thu, 28 May 2026 16:37:57 +0100Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: segfault in `daemon-accept-delivery` when delivering as mail relay (Issue #3228)
Thu, 28 May 2026 16:31:15 +0100Re: verify=recipient/callout,hold fails in 4.99
Thu, 28 May 2026 17:44:34 +0300Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: segfault in `daemon-accept-delivery` when delivering as mail relay (Issue #3228)
Thu, 28 May 2026 13:20:25 +0100Re: verify=recipient/callout,hold fails in 4.99
Wed, 27 May 2026 13:24:27 +0100Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: segfault in `daemon-accept-delivery` when delivering as mail relay (Issue #3228)
Thu, 28 May 2026 00:25:21 +0100Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: segfault in `daemon-accept-delivery` when delivering as mail relay (Issue #3228)
Wed, 27 May 2026 21:43:58 +0100Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: segfault in `daemon-accept-delivery` when delivering as mail relay (Issue #3228)
Wed, 27 May 2026 18:56:23 +0100[exim/exim] [Bug]: segfault in `daemon-accept-delivery` when delivering as mail relay (Issue #3228)
Wed, 27 May 2026 18:17:32 +0100Re: [exim/exim] NFS file locking description incorrect (Issue #3147)
Mon, 25 May 2026 13:06:39 +0100Re: [exim/exim] NFS file locking description incorrect (Issue #3147)
Mon, 25 May 2026 13:06:14 +0100Re: [exim/exim] Docs: mention MariaDB in MySQL lookup sections (PR #3227)
Mon, 25 May 2026 13:05:19 +0100Re: [exim/exim] Docs: mention MariaDB in MySQL lookup sections (PR #3227)
Mon, 25 May 2026 13:05:03 +0100[exim/exim] Docs: mention MariaDB in MySQL lookup sections (PR #3227)
Tue, 19 May 2026 03:46:53 +0100Re: exim-4.99.3 in exim/exim released
Sat, 16 May 2026 07:09:48 +0200Re: exim-4.99.3 in exim/exim released
Sat, 16 May 2026 07:06:13 +0200Re: exim-4.99.3 in exim/exim released
Fri, 15 May 2026 20:11:37 +0100 (BST)Re: [exim/exim] CVE-2026-45185 seems to be unexploitable. (Issue #3225)
Fri, 15 May 2026 08:16:53 +0100Re: [exim/exim] CVE-2026-45185 seems to be unexploitable. (Issue #3225)
Fri, 15 May 2026 08:01:12 +0100Re: [exim/exim] CVE-2026-45185 seems to be unexploitable. (Issue #3225)
Fri, 15 May 2026 03:38:27 +0100verify=recipient/callout,hold fails in 4.99
Thu, 14 May 2026 20:52:07 +0300Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: ${utf8_domain_to_alabel:} doe not validate result (Issue #3226)
Fri, 15 May 2026 01:33:05 +1000Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: ${utf8_domain_to_alabel:} doe not validate result (Issue #3226)
Thu, 14 May 2026 16:31:46 +0100Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: ${utf8_domain_to_alabel:} doe not validate result (Issue #3226)
Thu, 14 May 2026 16:29:18 +0100Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: ${utf8_domain_to_alabel:} doe not validate result (Issue #3226)
Thu, 14 May 2026 15:23:25 +0100[exim/exim] [Bug]: ${utf8_domain_to_alabel:} doe not validate result (Issue #3226)
Thu, 14 May 2026 15:20:50 +0100[exim/exim] CVE-2026-45185 seems to be unexploitable. (Issue #3225)
Thu, 14 May 2026 10:12:22 +0100Re: [exim/exim] DMARC always return norecord (Accept) for any police in subdomain bacause bug in opendmarc (Issue #3090)
Wed, 13 May 2026 15:29:43 +0100Re: strpbrk stops expand.c from compiling on Ubuntu 26-04
Wed, 13 May 2026 15:27:26 +0100 (BST)Re: [exim/exim] DMARC always return norecord (Accept) for any police in subdomain bacause bug in opendmarc (Issue #3090)
Wed, 13 May 2026 14:43:21 +0100Re: [exim/exim] DMARC always return norecord (Accept) for any police in subdomain bacause bug in opendmarc (Issue #3090)
Wed, 13 May 2026 14:29:53 +0100exim-4.99.3 in exim/exim released
Tue, 12 May 2026 15:57:00 +0100[exim/exim] [Bug]: exim-be can't place $ in a tainted variable (Issue #3224)
Tue, 12 May 2026 03:01:36 +0100Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: Incorrect link in Chapter 9 documentation (Issue #3223)
Mon, 11 May 2026 17:08:42 +0100Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: Incorrect link in Chapter 9 documentation (Issue #3223)
Mon, 11 May 2026 17:04:44 +0100[exim/exim] [Bug]: Incorrect link in Chapter 9 documentation (Issue #3223)
Mon, 11 May 2026 15:45:36 +0100Re: strpbrk stops expand.c from compiling on Ubuntu 26-04
Sat, 2 May 2026 22:45:51 +0100strpbrk stops expand.c from compiling on Ubuntu 26-04
Sat, 2 May 2026 21:50:18 +0100 (BST)[exim/exim] [Bug]: ARC signature verification fails if one signed header name is a prefix of another (Issue #3222)
Thu, 30 Apr 2026 16:30:02 +0100Re: Exim 4.99.2 signatures
Thu, 30 Apr 2026 10:45:04 +0100Exim 4.99.2 signatures
Thu, 30 Apr 2026 05:07:49 +0000exim-4.99.2 in exim/exim released
Wed, 29 Apr 2026 13:12:24 +0100Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: host_lookup not applied for client addresses passed via proxy protocol (Issue #3221)
Tue, 28 Apr 2026 20:27:00 +0100[exim/exim] [Bug]: host_lookup not applied for client addresses passed via proxy protocol (Issue #3221)
Tue, 28 Apr 2026 19:56:39 +0100Re: [exim/exim] A patch to add a link to SECTforexpfai where forced expansion failure is referred to before it was discussed (Issue #3220)
Sat, 25 Apr 2026 20:25:12 +0100[exim/exim] A patch to add a link to SECTforexpfai where forced expansion failure is referred to before it was discussed (Issue #3220)
Sat, 25 Apr 2026 19:13:31 +0100[exim/exim] Doc: the link is correct but its section number is wrongly displayed after formating, at least with html formating (Issue #3219)
Sat, 25 Apr 2026 12:31:35 +0100Re: GIT repo inaccessible
Sun, 19 Apr 2026 17:37:30 +0100Re: GIT repo inaccessible
Sun, 19 Apr 2026 15:45:39 +0100GIT repo inaccessible
Sun, 19 Apr 2026 16:38:58 +0200Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: GNUTLS certificate validation incompatible with certificates lacking a commonName attribute (Issue #3215)
Sun, 19 Apr 2026 15:18:14 +0100Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: GNUTLS certificate validation incompatible with certificates lacking a commonName attribute (Issue #3215)
Sun, 19 Apr 2026 14:07:52 +0200Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: GNUTLS certificate validation incompatible with certificates lacking a commonName attribute (Issue #3215)
Sun, 19 Apr 2026 09:39:05 +0100Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: GNUTLS certificate validation incompatible with certificates lacking a commonName attribute (Issue #3215)
Sun, 19 Apr 2026 07:41:54 +0200Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: GNUTLS certificate validation incompatible with certificates lacking a commonName attribute (Issue #3215)
Sun, 19 Apr 2026 13:08:37 +1000Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: GNUTLS certificate validation incompatible with certificates lacking a commonName attribute (Issue #3215)
Sat, 18 Apr 2026 18:25:00 +0200Re: [exim/exim] Spec, examples of different lookup syntax: if it shouldn't have read as suggested, it should explain why not (Issue #3216)
Thu, 16 Apr 2026 10:47:42 +0100Re: [exim/exim] Spec, examples of different lookup syntax: if it shouldn't have read as suggested, it should explain why not (Issue #3216)
Thu, 16 Apr 2026 10:33:53 +0100Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: GNUTLS certificate validation incompatible with certificates lacking a commonName attribute (Issue #3215)
Wed, 15 Apr 2026 19:06:55 +0100[exim/exim] Typo in spec.xfpt#L7062: nunbered instead of numbered (Issue #3217)
Thu, 16 Apr 2026 01:12:38 +0100Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: GNUTLS certificate validation incompatible with certificates lacking a commonName attribute (Issue #3215)
Wed, 15 Apr 2026 10:57:40 +0100Re: [exim/exim] Spec, examples of different lookup syntax: if it shouldn't have read as suggested, it should explain why not (Issue #3216)
Wed, 15 Apr 2026 10:20:44 +0100Re: [exim/exim] Spec, examples of different lookup syntax: if it shouldn't have read as suggested, it should explain why not (Issue #3216)
Wed, 15 Apr 2026 10:18:40 +0100Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: GNUTLS certificate validation incompatible with certificates lacking a commonName attribute (Issue #3215)
Wed, 15 Apr 2026 18:39:21 +1000Re: [exim/exim] Spec, examples of different lookup syntax: if it shouldn't have read as suggested, it should explain why not (Issue #3216)
Wed, 15 Apr 2026 09:37:17 +0100Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: GNUTLS certificate validation incompatible with certificates lacking a commonName attribute (Issue #3215)
Wed, 15 Apr 2026 18:32:50 +1000Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: GNUTLS certificate validation incompatible with certificates lacking a commonName attribute (Issue #3215)
Wed, 15 Apr 2026 10:30:46 +0200Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: GNUTLS certificate validation incompatible with certificates lacking a commonName attribute (Issue #3215)
Tue, 14 Apr 2026 17:41:58 +0100Re: [exim/exim] [Bug]: GNUTLS certificate validation incompatible with certificates lacking a commonName attribute (Issue #3215)
Wed, 15 Apr 2026 06:30:36 +0100
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.