On Thu, 2 Jan 1997, Philip Hazel wrote:
> Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 09:50:51 +0000 (GMT)
> From: Philip Hazel <ph10@???>
> To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@???>
> Cc: exim-users@???
> Subject: Re: delivery timeouts
>
> On Wed, 1 Jan 1997, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> > I have the following queue on my main mail server. Is exim really able to
> > delivery mail to mailing list? It seems that mail was not delivered to a
> > huge list of people because ONE address cannot be delivered to:
> >
> > 31h 0vf6Z7-00087o-00 <digiboard-request@???>
> > * JORCHARD@???
>
> <snip>
>
> I know that you have already received the answer to this, which is that
> those addresses that are starred have already been delivered. The
> question is, should a change be made to Exim? When I wrote it, I thought
> it would be useful to show all addresses, indicating those which had
> already been dealt with. It seems that this can be misunderstood. On the
> other hand, I have a feeling that showing only the outstanding addresses
> could equally easily be misunderstood - "I sent a message to three
> people and it only shows one of them". Does anyone on this list hold
> strong views either way?
I must admit to having been confused by this, probably because frozen
messages are marked *** Frozen ***, so I initially assumed that the
single asterisks indicated a temporary problem. I think displaying all
the messages is the sensible behaviour, I'm just not sure that the
asterisk is the right character to use to flag undelivered messages. why
not use something like 'U' for 'undelivered' or 'P' for 'pending', or even
an entire word or phrase. There's usually enough space on these lines for
this. You might even have enough space to give a short description of the
routing/delivery problem.
Tim.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dept. of Biochemistry Tel: +44 1223 333596
Tennis Court Rd.
Cambridge, CB2 1QW, UK
