Does the not-technical sender really care about the exact semantics? My
point was not that it was technically accurate, but that it was not
cryptic.
It may be not a technically exact description, but it is not a
confusing description.
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, j.linn wrote:
> "mailbox full" is not in fact aq corret description of the EXIM quota
> failure.
>
> "INBOX currently too full for this message, try smaller one"
>
> is perhaps more accurate
>
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Dave C. wrote:
>
> >
> > 'mailbox full' is cryptic???
> >
> > I mean, even extrapolating that to a post office box, 'mailbox full' is
> > still pretty clear..
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> >
> > > Philip Hazel rearranged electrons thusly:
> > >
> > > > The sender should get the normal warning message for delayed
> > > > mail, as configured by delay_warning and delay_warning_condition. Is
> > > > anything more needed?
> > >
> > > ... and that would normally carry the smtp error message mailbox full with the
> > > 421 error. Unless he wants to amend that error to send something in plain
> > > english rather than just a cryptic smtp error.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
> >
>
>
--
