On Mon, 21 Jun 1999, John Horne wrote:
> The point I'm getting at with all this is that the manual seemed to
> imply that the sender of the original message got a message back (from
> us) saying that the recipients mail was deferred. This didn't seem right to
> us and I couldn't see it happening in any tests.
I have made a note to make the manual more clear.
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
--
*** Exim information can be found at
http://www.exim.org/ ***
