On Wednesday 28 September 2005 22:50, Steve Lamb wrote: > Adam Funk wrote: > > That tenet is respected in the Unix tradition by using distinct tools > > that have well-defined, debuggable interfaces between them (e.g. SMTP > > and sendmail's handling of stdin). > > Ah yes, SMTP. And when that fails. Like the network isn't > connectable? Do we just throw the message away. "Sorry, the remote > queue isn't available, we'll just /dev/null it and have you guess at > why your cron job didn't work. G'luck!"
No, we queue it locally in the MTA queue until we can shift it from there. > > Without it, the batch job mail will be from and to > > [EMAIL PROTECTED], which is probably not the > > right address for receiving it or for replies and bounces. > > Call me crazy but I generally configure the programs so mail is > deliverable to the proper person. 10 years, not one address rewrite. > Address rewriting isn't need to do that, it is only the most difficult > and needless way to do it. If you prefer to do it that way, it's a matter of personal taste, but I find that for cron and at, rewriting and using ~/.forward are the easiest way to generalize the mail handling -- rather than configuring it over again in each job. -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
