On 11 Nov 1999 michael@??? wrote:
> I had a few confused customers by now that were puzzled by the
> following error message:
>
> no valid sender in message headers: return path is <>
>
> This means: There was no valid sender in message headers,
> but the problem is NOT the return path!
Yes. Others have been confused by it. What I wanted to do was to record
the return path in case it could help in debugging.
> Any suggestions for better wording that makes clear what the
> problem with the message is?
Maybe I should just use parens instead of that colon:
no valid sender in message headers (return path is <>)
or even
no valid sender in message headers (envelope return path is <>)
or
no valid sender in message headers (FYI: envelope return path is <>)
or maybe
envelope return path is <> but there is no valid sender in the message's headers
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
