On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, Chris Thompson wrote:
> Alan Thew writes:
> >
> > Why not use
> >
> > delay_warning = huge_number
> >
> > This is crude and doesn't quite achieve sensible warnings to lists as
> > against users.
>
> If you just want to turn off warning reports altogether,
>
> delay_warning = 0s
Ok, Thanks.
>
> is canonical.
>
> > Our PP system sends 2 warnings in 8 days and that's what we want exim to
> > do, currently it's 48 hours.
>
> I have suggested in the past on this list that delay_warning should allow
> something more like a retry specification, rather than just multiples of
> a particular value.
Much better.
>
> On Tue, 29 Jul 1997, Greg Andrews wrote:
>
> > As I understand it, Sendmail doesn't generate warnings for messages
> > that have certain values in the Precedence: header. I believe the
> > values are commonly configured as 'list', 'bulk', and 'junk'.
> >
> > I don't know if Exim has the same functionality, but it seems to me
> > like a good idea.
>
> It doesn't currently, but this seems to me to be the best suggestion. As
> Exim has the parsed headers read into store when it is considering whether
> to send a warning message, it wouldn't seem to be too difficult to implement.
> But I had better not promise anything on behalf of Philip Hazel while he
> isn't here...
>
LISTSERV does not use Precedence fields, so you will not stop complaints
from people who run this. It's probably possible to configure LISTSERV to
add the field but the latest version does not do this out of the box.
--
Alan Thew alan.thew@???
Computing Services,University of Liverpool Fax: +44 151 794-4442
