Ken Olum wrote:
> I intentionally did not mention that you would get "Unrouteable
> address". This was supposed to force you do actually read a bit of the
> documentation. To no luck. :/
>
> Do you think this is some kind of game? You actually knew the
> situation, but you thought you'd conceal it to make extra work for me?
I owe you nothing. I do not even know who you are. Be polite, say thanks
and go on with you work.
What situation did I "actually know"?
> Thanks a lot, buddy!
You are welcome.
> I thought the point of answering people's mail on mailing lists was to
> actually help them, not to play games.
I answered your question, exactly what you asked. The "Unrouteable
address" message was something I had in my sight, but did not mention
that since you only wanted ":fail:" messages to be shown.
> But I suppose that you personally have read every line of the
> documentation for every program that you use, so you wouldn't
> understand.
Your assumption is incorrect. However, I do *try* to find a solution
myself first. Usually that helps. Also worth mentioning is the fact that
some documentations simply suck. The latter is, of course, not the case
with Exim.
--
Kirill Miazine, Stud.Jur.
Faculty of Law, University of Oslo
