On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Christian Stuellenberg wrote:
> So, I looked at deliver.c lines 5626ff. Seems so, as if it should be
> easily possible instead of using only one message with an Bcc set to
> the errors_copy addresses, to use an additional FILE *f2 (do we also
> need another subprocess for that?) to construct another message for
> the errors_copy addresses.
If you want to provide an errors_tell without the body internally, then
yes, that is what you would have to do, and another process would have
to be used.
> What do you think about such an "hack"?
It would work, but I think it is something that is of quite minority
interest. I don't think many people use errors_tell. We certainly do not
- our postmaster mailboxes would be bursting.
I suspect errors_tell is useful only in small companies where there may
be only one or two bounce messages a day.
So, what I'm saying is that I think this is something I would rate at a
very low priority. I'm sorry about that, but the Wish List is already
very long!
Regards,
Philip
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
