--On 29 June 2010 10:51:00 +0100 David Woodhouse <[email protected]> wrote:
> n Mon, 2010-06-28 at 11:48 +0100, Ian Eiloart wrote: >> Well, the backscatter issue means that we have no choice but to try to >> do that. But that's a bad thing. It would be a much better world in >> which we were able to accept such messages, and then generate a bounce. >> Why? Because bounce messages have the potential to be more >> user-friendly. > > Users still won't bother to read them, and will prefer to ask a sysadmin > who will have read the words on the user's screen to them, before the > user actually understands. Well, that will often be the case. I'm just saying that a bounce message has more chance of conveying useful information if its created by the receiving server than the sending server. Why? Because the best the sending server can do is try to interpret the SMTP (enhanced?) error code, and wrap the SMTP error text. Even if this just makes life easier for the admin, then that's progress. -- Ian Eiloart IT Services, University of Sussex 01273-873148 x3148 For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/ -- ## List details at http://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/
