Re: [Exim] removing 'frozen' messages

Etusivu
Poista viesti
Vastaa
Lähettäjä: Ken Jackson
Päiväys:  
Vastaanottaja: Christopher Curtis
Kopio: exim-users, K.Jackson
Aihe: Re: [Exim] removing 'frozen' messages
> >
> > > > KJ> The poblem is, they are staying on the queue for up to 26 days so far and
> > > > KJ> are not disappearing.
> >
> > > # If you can't return an error message after 2 days, delete it.
> > > ignore_errmsg_errors_after = 48h
> >
> > > # timeout anything a week old
> > > timeout_frozen_after = 7d


> > The whole point of my original question was that I have these
> > settings in my configure file, but they don't appear to be working?


> In your original post, you only the mentioned timeout_frozen_after limit.
> If you do an 'exim -bp' and see that the return address is '<>', these are
> error messages that exim generated and couldn't return, most likely due to
> an invalid username (aka spam). This is not your typical frozen message -
> this is a generated error message, and an error message _must_ be
> delivered (the default timeout is 0s, ie, never timeout). Adding
> ignore_errmsg_errors_after will delete the frozen error messages, which is
> probably what you are dealing with.
> Chris


Actually, in my original post, I clearly state:

} In my configure file, I have the following settings of:
} ignore_errmsg_errors_after = 4d
} timeout_frozen_after = 7d
} *       *      F,2h,15m; G,16h,1h,1.5; F,4d,8h


indicating that I do in fact already use the parameter you suggest,
and the problem being that it is not appearing to have much effect.

Also, please forgive my inexperience, as I am very new to Email administration,
but from the documentation in the Exim manual (page 15), I understand
the <> in the return path means "Delivery failure reports (bounce messages)
are sent out with empty envelope sender addresses which appear as <>
specifically to identify them as bounced, so if they in turn fail to be
delivered, no subsequent failure report is generated, in order to avoid mail
bounce loops occurring"...
So the empty <> is nothing to do with 'spam' and is actually a desired thing
to have? Or am I reading it incorrectly?


Regards,

    Ken Jackson,
----------------------------------------------------------------