Re: [Exim] disposition notification

Kezdőlap
Üzenet törlése
Válasz az üzenetre
Szerző: Philip Hazel
Dátum:  
Címzett: Phil Pennock
CC: exim-users
Tárgy: Re: [Exim] disposition notification
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.