On Thu, 25 Sep 1997, Chris Thompson wrote:
> There does seem to be a lot of confusion caused by the different sender_*
> parameters, with their varying formats and effects. I think this has a lot to
> do with the overloading of the word "sender", to indicate variously the sending
> host and the sending RFC 822 address ("envelope sender", a.k.a. "return path").
> The fact that "sender_reject" refers to the latter isn't obvious to those
> who have not R'dTFM with due diligence. The alphabetical list in section 10
> becomes very much not ordered by function, with many cross-references.
You are quite right. Once upon a time the list of options was fairly
short. I originally chose sender_host to make it clear which host was
being talked about; the mistake was then just to use "sender" for the
envelope address. I should have used "sender_address" or something. Too
late now, unfortunately. (Though I suppose we *could* change all the
names and keep the old ones available for compatibility, but I rather
shudder at that.)
I also agree that what is really needed are two lists: one grouped by
function, and the other alphabetically, for reference. Chapter 44 is
supposed to fulfil some of the function of the former, but perhaps its
title doesn't make it clear that it covers all these rejection issues.
And there is always scope for improvement in the content.
--
Philip Hazel University Computing Service,
ph10@??? New Museums Site, Cambridge CB2 3QG,
P.Hazel@??? England. Phone: +44 1223 334714
--
* This is sent by the exim-users mailing list. To unsubscribe send a
mail with subject "unsubscribe" to exim-users-request@???
* Exim information can be found at http://www.exim.org/
