Re: [exim] Thanks for all your input

Top Page
This message is part of the following thread:
Mthe complete thread tree sorted by date
MDavid Woodhouse at <-
MPeter Bowyer at ->
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Author: Jon Kyme
Date:  
To: exim-users
Subject: Re: [exim] Thanks for all your input

>> Yes, I see that. I suppose I'm asking if the forwarder
>> (alias-expander) is
>> correct to preserve <>, or whether it should supply a new,
>> valid, non-null
>> reverse-path.

David Woodhouse <dwmw2@???> wrote:

>$DEITY yes it's correct to leave it as <>. Turning bounces into
>non-bounces would be _BAD_.

Why?







This message was posted to the following mailing lists:
Exim-users
Mailing List Info | Nearby Messages		<-Re: [exim] reject-log questionRe: [exim] Thanks for all your input->
Tahini and Hummus and Cumin Development Archives administrated by cumin AdminsLurker (version 2.3)