Thank you for your quick response on your return. (hope you had a good
break.)
On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, Philip Hazel wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, Hugh Sasse wrote:
>
> > Philip's crafting of messages is usually very clear, so I would suspect
> > the problem does lie at macondo (DNS shot to bits?), rather than further
> > along. When he returns I will ask if he might add some reason (why can it
> > not route?) to this message.
>
> "Cannot route" means "took the address, ran it through the directors
> and/or routers as configured, and none of them could handle it". There
Could the reason why it could not be handled be added in, then, as one
gets good diags for a normal delivery failure or defer? If this
would make the message too long, could you consider just adding an
error number, when you revisit that RFC about error code returns (raised
in the context of internationalisation earlier)? Well, if you decide
to persue the concept of error numbers, anyway. :-)
> isn't much more that can be said. To find out why it cannot route to any
> specific address, run
>
> exim -d9 -bv that@address
>
> if it was verifying, or use -bt if it was delivering.
>
I did that, but the error had gone, so I don't know what it
was at the time. Hence my remark about DNS.
> --
> Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
> ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
> Government Policy: If it ain't broke, fix it till it is.
>
Thank you,
Hugh
hgs@???
