On Tue, 2010-06-29 at 12:52 +0100, Jethro R Binks wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jun 2010, Ian Eiloart wrote: > > > --On 29 June 2010 10:51:00 +0100 David Woodhouse <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > 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. > > Some of those users have no interest in hearing the sysadmin read the > words to them or having an understanding of what they mean; they are > showing them to the sysadmin purely so that he'll do something to make the > problem go away.
It's often a problem which is entirely outside the realm of the local sysadmin, though. It's almost always the _remote_ server which is failing to accept the mail. Occasionally that might be because of a local problem, such as being on a blacklist or lacking reverse DNS, that the local sysadmin can deal with. Mostly it's not though. > > 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. > > Not to mention that if you issue multi-line rejection messages, you may > find that the sender receives back an error report with one of: > > 1. all of your carefully crafted lines; > > 2. the first line; > > 3. the last line; or > > 4. none of them, and to boot, an incorrect or misleading error message > resulting from invalid assumptions by the sending server. In cases 2-4, I suppose it _is_ correct for the users to bug their sysadmin, until such time as he/she fixes the mail server so that it _does_ correctly cite the SMTP error. -- dwmw2 -- ## 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/
