On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, der Mouse wrote:
> > Exim will only normally accept-and-bounce if it's poorly configured,
> > or in exceptional circumstances.
Correct. You can configure it either way, but the default is to test
what it can before accepting. The point is you can never be 100% sure
that you will be able to deliver, so there will always be
accept-and-bounce cases (even for the non-submission situation).
> > RFC3462 bounces seem like a sane plan though. Got a patch?
>
> No, unfortunately. I don't run exim myself.
The Exim Wish List contains this item (note that 3462 obsoletes 1892):
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(105) 28-Jun-1999 M MIME-format bounce messages
Paul Makepeace
"Is there any work going/gone on/planned to enable exim to report delivery
status notifications using RFC1892 multipart/report MIME messages? It would be
great to have errors reported in a message/rfc822 attachment."
Jeffrey Goldberg
"I like plain bounces, so would hope that if you do this, that it be
configurable. I think that even for those who want it, it shouldn't be very
high on the wish list priority."
Other suggestions: toggle for bounces/warnings; override max_return for
certain addresses; use plain text if original not MIME. See Paul's hack
for background of what to do.
Nigel suggests using a specially named autoreply transport to generate bounces;
people could then replace this with another transport (e.g. pipe) if they want
to customize it themselves.
Eli Chen posted an unconditional patch for 3.32 that does some of this work.
That could form a basis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing has happened since then. For myself, I've always found other
more pressing (IMHO) things to do, and nobody has been sufficiently keen
to provide a patch.
> The story, in brief: I ran into a German site that (a) did
> accept-and-bounce, (b) didn't do 3462, and (c) rejected my reply to the
> bounce (ie, mail to the From: address on the bounce) with a message
> telling me my(!) software was broken.
Was that an *automatic* reply to the bounce? If so, with respect, I
suggest that doing that is rather unwise. If not, then the German site
is not exactly well-managed...
> Of course, even if you were to completely agree with me and rush to
> implement RFC3462 bounces,
Given that it's been on the Wish List for 5 years, and I do not hear
millions of people shouting for it, or implementing it, I'm afraid that
I cannot conclude that there is any hurry. :-)
It would be interesting to know exactly which MTAs support 3462 and
which do not. I suspect Exim is not alone.
Regards,
Philip
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
