On 21 Nov 2002, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
> Philip,
>
> One of the joys of owning the postmaster@??? address is the number
> of messages from utter idiots berating me for sending them spam etc
> (plus another american threat of a lawsuit this week).
>
> Would it be possible to make the default bounce/error messages etc to
> not include any reference to exim in the message body. This would (in
> a few years time when updates propagate) prevent people immediately
> assuming that bounce messages from spam runs forged from their address
> are *my* fault.
I sympathize deeply.
This is one of those situations where I can't win. But I can keep on
trying...
1. Originally, the name "Exim" did not appear in the body. People
misunderstood the message and thought it came from a human, or from a
MUA. I was asked to make it clear which piece of software was
generating the message, so I added "(Exim)".
2. Then we got into the situation where people thought that that meant
exim.org, so I changed it to read "(Exim) running on a mail server
handling mail for $qualify_domain" for the forthcoming 4.11 release.
(That is, I was already aware of your problem. :-)
3. That change is already in the snapshot, and it has been pointed out
that it can also be confusing when the server is actually handling
several domains and the incoming message isn't for $qualify_domain.
It was suggested that $qualify_domain be changed to $domain, but I
haven't yet got to that work item (but it's now 3rd on my list,
so this is timely).
4. Unfortunately, a bounce message may refer to several bounced
recipients, so you can't always use $domain.
5. I now receive your request...
I think it's becoming clear that the changes have had negative effects,
and perhaps I should go back to the original wording, which did not
mention Exim, nor anything about the server.
What do people think?
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
