On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 04:11:04PM -0000, Aaron Stone wrote: > I also read that Procmail will read up to 4K of output from the pipe delivery > process and will mail that back to the sender. > > Do we prefer our current internal handling of bounces, or should we switch to > using the MTA for this kind of dirty work?
I think it's best for the MTA to handle bounces. In my setup, I only pass mail to dbmail that can be delivered. I do alias expansion and recipient verification in Exim. > Also, if Exim only support EX_CANTCREAT and EX_TEMPFAIL, and treats them in > the same way, how do we propose to support EX_NOUSER and the like? Is it the > correct behaviour for us to return EX_NOUSER if there's no such user and let > Exim handle the rest, generating a permanent message delivery failure? Yes, I'd put the responsibility on the MTA. If the MTA can only handle temporary versus permanent failures, you'll still get the appropriate action, but a bounce message might not be as informative as it could be. > Notably absent from the list of return codes is something like "EX_OVERQUOT" > for an over-quota situation. Should that be a permanent or a temporary > failure? (i.e. should we use EX_CANTCREAT if there's "no space to create?") I'd say over-quota is a temporary condition. I haven't used dbmail's quotas yet. Does it inject an over-quota message directly into the user's INBOX, bypassing quota restrictions? xn
