On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Phil Pennock wrote:
> I said, "report/delivery-status" when I should have said
> "multitype/report; report-type=delivery-status" -- sorry.
That is a whole different ballpark.
> Which, aside from a reference to size-limits not being an issue because
> of max_return_size (which isn't in spec.txt for Exim 3.20 and isn't in
> the source)
Do you mean return_size_limit, which IS in the spec? (And the source :-)
> one analysis which questions "final delivery"
> definitions and forwarding/aliasing.
This is my difficulty with DSN. I did (some years ago) try to start
coding it, and got stuck. That is, I couldn't come up with what I
thought was a useful way of implementing it. I then decided I had more
important things to do. I wonder if it is just coincidence that neither
qmail nor PostFix have implemented DSN either (as somebody said on this
list - I assume it's true. :-)
> ``I can
> understand "not support anything but failure or delay"''.
That, of course, cuts out most of the point of "full" DSN, as I see it.
People who advocate it are the people who "want to be told when my
message is delivered".
> The biggest issue seems to be coding it. Philip, what are the odds of
> your considering DSN for Exim 4, please?
Probably zero in the sense of actually implementing the RFC. However,
MIME-format bounces has been on the Wish List for some time:
(105) 28-Jun-1999 M MIME-format bounce messages
Paul Makepeace (Paul.Makepeace@???)
"Is there any work going/gone on/planned to enable exim to report delivery
status notifications using RFC1892 multipart/report MIME messages? It would be
great to have errors reported in a message/rfc822 attachment."
Jeffrey Goldberg <J.Goldberg@???>
"I like plain bounces, so would hope that if you do this, that it be
configurable. I think that even for those who want it, it shouldn't be very
high on the wish list priority."
Other suggestions: toggle for bounces/warnings; override max_return for
certain addresses; use plain text if original not MIME.
for background of what to do.
Nigel suggests using a specially named autoreply transport to generate bounces;
people could then replace this with another transport (e.g. pipe) if they want
to customize it themselves.
Maybe I'll get to this when I run out of other things to do. At the moment,
there are rather a lot of other things that I'm promising for Exim 4 ... :-)
However, when the Exim 4 structure is in place, implementing Nigel's
suggestion will be possible. It isn't possible in Exim 3 for the same
reason that fallback transports are unimplementable (Exim has lost its
privilege by that time).
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
