Hi Phil,
Just in case you are tempted - we would do with feature too. We want to
recieve an email, attempt to send it via SMTP and if that delivery fails
to store that mail in a real mailbox rather than in the queue...
Regards,
aid
--
Adrian J Bool | http://www.noc.u-net.net/
Network Manager | tel://44.1925.484061/
U-NET Ltd | fax://44.1925.484055/
On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Philip Hazel wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 1999, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
>
> > I think that the question was to inform the recipients, not the sender,
> > who will get an appropriately generated bounce. It appears that the
> > management want mail that says something like
> >
> > "Someone tried to send you mail, but it didn't get through because the
> > sender probably thinks that MS-Word or PowerPoint are reasonable
> > document exchange formats. Now do you really want to be getting mail
> > from such idiots anyway?"
>
> Ah. I had misunderstood that. Sven's later message pointing out that the
> limit is on a transport also makes it clear that this is indeed what is
> wanted.
>
> I don't think there is any way to do this at present. On the Wish List
> is the following item:
>
> (93) 04-May-1999 L fallback_transport
>
> This would be a generic transport option, specifying a different transport to
> be used if the first one failed. Failed hard, or failed soft? Or an option?
>
> If I ever implement it, it could be used for this kind of thing by
> falling back to an autoreply transport.
>
> --
> Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
> ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
>
>
>
>
> --
> ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
>
