I also read that Procmail will read up to 4K of output from the pipe delivery process and will mail that back to the sender.
Do we prefer our current internal handling of bounces, or should we switch to using the MTA for this kind of dirty work? Also, if Exim only support EX_CANTCREAT and EX_TEMPFAIL, and treats them in the same way, how do we propose to support EX_NOUSER and the like? Is it the correct behaviour for us to return EX_NOUSER if there's no such user and let Exim handle the rest, generating a permanent message delivery failure? Notably absent from the list of return codes is something like "EX_OVERQUOT" for an over-quota situation. Should that be a permanent or a temporary failure? (i.e. should we use EX_CANTCREAT if there's "no space to create?") Aaron ""Christian G. Warden"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 02:54:33PM -0000, Aaron Stone wrote: > > > > So following up on the issue of return codes from dbmail-smtp, I'm looking > > around on the 'net for any documentation about any standards for return > > codes, > > perhaps de facto standards (e.g. whatever procmail uses). Best I came up > > with > > was the suggestion to use codes contained in /usr/include/sysexits.h. Seems > > like a pretty good list of codes. Anyone know of anything better? > > By default, Exim treats EX_TEMPFAIL and EX_CANTCREAT as temporary > failures and any other non-zero return codes as permanent failures. > These are the two return codes that procmail uses. > > http://www.exim.org/exim-html-4.30/doc/html/spec_29.html#IX2015 > _______________________________________________ > Dbmail-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://twister.fastxs.net/mailman/listinfo/dbmail-dev > --
