Re: [Exim] Exim setup done and it works ok, but...

On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, The awesome and feared Philip Hazel commented thusly,

> On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel wrote:
>
> > > "This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
> >
> > OK..what is this mysterious mail delivery software, there is *abosolutely*
> > nothing to say that this was created by Exim, and not sendmail etc.
>
> For most users, the process by which their email gets delivered IS
> "mysterious", indeed.

Yes, that is true :)

> I chose the phrase "mail delivery software" as one which I hoped
> everybody would understand. I *think* people who use computers have some
> vague idea what "software" is. I deliberately did not say "Exim" because
> ordinary users probably have no idea what Exim is, nor did I think "mail
> transfer agent" was very understandable.

Well it would help to show that the MTA is Exim.

> Maybe "the mail delivery program on host.name" is better. What do people
> think?

Yes, that is a Good thing(tm). It would be much more informative than the
current message IMHO.

> > Wrong pal, the qmail message is more clearer, it says that is a *permanent
> > error*, the above Exim message doesn't say so.
>
> Again, this is a matter of interpretation. I am conscious that many
> users of Exim are not native speakers of English, and I did try to make
> the language simple. However, I *am* a native English speaker, with no
> training in English as a foreign language, so it is very easy to slip
> up. My understanding of "failed to deliver" is that it is all over;

Actually although English is my second language, and I pride myself about
my fluency in the english language, the "failed to deliver" need not be
permanent, the way I understand it. It is much to short a explanation
IMHO. It would be better to say that, "...failed to deliver your message,
this is a permanent error and no further attempts to deliver it will
be made" .

That should make things crystal clear.

> there will be no more trying; however, I suppose people who have a
> little understanding of email might think this refers to one temporary
> failure.

Yes I agree.

> I could easily add some reinforcement using the words "permanent
> failure" if people think this would make it clearer. Opinions?
> (e.g. "This is a permanent failure; the delivery program has given up
> trying and is returning the message to you.")

Voila! This is much much better. I really think you should make this
change Phillip as the benefits from this will be allways positive, ie less
confusion etc...

> > FWIW this was the reason for me to originally start this post about
> > how to go about changing the bounce message..
>
> It is precisely because this is a semi-cultural thing and different
> people have different views that the errmsg_file facility exists.

Yes, but it would be nice if the default message could be less confusing
then there would be less need to mess with the errmsg_file IMHO.


Good luck,
Grendel

Hi, I'm a signature virus. plz set me as your signature and help me spread
:)