On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, Hugh Sasse wrote:
> > "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?
The problem is that it's "reasonS", not "reason". You may have a lot of
directors. Even with the default set, the full information might look
like
system_aliases failed to handle address - no match in /xxx/yyy
userforward failed to handle address - no such user
localuser failed to handle address - no such user
and if you were handling virtual domains and mailing lists as well it
could become a very long piece of text. Similarly for remote addresses
in cases when you have a number of different routers.
> 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. :-)
I rather doubt that there are error codes which match all the different
circumstances.
--
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.
