Quoting Russell Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Chris Hardie writes:
Unfortunately, that link appears to be broken. Brian Wightman, please
pick up the nearest courtesy phone.
It's also temporarily available as
http://www.qmail.org/qmail_bounce-0.0alpha6.tar.gz . If Brian doesn't
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's also temporarily available as
http://www.qmail.org/qmail_bounce-0.0alpha6.tar.gz . If Brian doesn't
show up too soon, I'll change the link to point to my server.
(ring ring - Uhhh, hello?) My ISP has changed a couple of times since
that link
Quoting Russell Nelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Chris Hardie writes:
Unfortunately, that link appears to be broken. Brian Wightman, please
pick up the nearest courtesy phone.
It's also temporarily available as
http://www.qmail.org/qmail_bounce-0.0alpha6.tar.gz . If Brian doesn't
show
Kai MacTane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In the case of a failure to deliver, the user will not get *any* warning
about it until queuelifetime has passed. I think that the option to have
qmail (or a plug-in or add-on program) deliver a message back to the
user stating that the message hasn't
Racer X [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: "Brian Johnson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
this was my point earlier, you can't always count on getting an error
message if there is an error, because there's _always_ a chance that
the message will be lost without a trace. so if you do make errors
Not if
Kai MacTane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As things stand with qmail right now, a user sending mail through qmail
gets one of three things:
1) A successful delivery.
2) A bounce message (liable to happen within a few minutes under most
circumstances).
3) An eventual failure (which takes
On Apr 25 2000, Russ Allbery wrote:
I'd also significantly reduce the queue lifetime; honestly, if the
message can't be delivered in two or three days, most e-mail users
these days seem to have already concluded it will never get there
and get really confused when it comes through.
Rogerio Brito [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, three days may be a little short. Or should this mean that
secondary MXs, once fought against begin to become a necessary
condition?
I use secondary MXes for all of my e-mail precisely because I want control
over the queuing if a
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Rogerio Brito wrote:
If you're considering less than seven days for queuelifetime,
do set it to at least four days -- it's frequently the case
where a message was not delivered because some computer failed
on a Friday afternoon and it can only be
"J.M. Roth \(iip\)" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is it possible to configure qmail to send out a "temporary failure" message
or something if mail can't be delivered rightaway?
No.
One of our users had an important mail in the queue which was returned to
him only 7 days later ('cause of a DNS
Dave Sill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"J.M. Roth \(iip\)" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is it possible to configure qmail to send out a "temporary failure" message
or something if mail can't be delivered rightaway?
No.
But if you're desperate, you can create this feature easily. Write a Perl
At 4/24/2000 10:56 AM -0400, Dave Sill wrote or quoted:
"J.M. Roth \(iip\)" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of our users had an important mail in the queue which was returned to
him only 7 days later ('cause of a DNS failure), way too late...
Oh? What would the user have done had he known there
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 13:53:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dave Sill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 4/24/2000 10:56 AM -0400, Dave Sill wrote or quoted:
"J.M. Roth \(iip\)" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of our users had an important mail in the queue which was returned to
him only 7 days
Ian Lance Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a real indictment of the state of the Internet.
It's more of an example of some of the differences between the ways
different communication technologies/protocols work.
I hope that someday people will trust the Internet the way they trust
the
the only thing that makes the phone system more reliable than the internet is that
you get an instant response, if you don't get a response then you know their's a
problem. by the nature of e-mail you do-not get an instant response, so after some
time of no response you have to assume the
Ian Lance Taylor writes:
Sure. You get a rapid indication of an error condition. qmail by
default provides an indication of an error condition after 1 week.
I would be interesting to see (someone else do :) a study of the time
in the queue vs. success in delivery. How profitable is it to
Ian Lance Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Dave Sill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anyone who assumes that An Important Mail has been delivered intact
and read by the recipient simply because they didn't receive a
warning or bounce message deserves what they get.
This is a real
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 15:26:00 -0400
From: Brian Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the person could just simply not
be checking their e-mail, or you could've mistyped the address, or a million
other things, so you just plain can't depend on the system, but the more
checks you put in,
From: "Len Budney" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 15:37:14 -0400
Not at all. Dave said, ``simply because they didn't receive a
warning...'' In other words, you can't assume the message was
received, simply because you WEREN'T told that it WASN'T received. You
can
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Why bother sending a bounce message at all, then?
to help diagnose the problem? you send an e-mail to the only person who's
address you know for sure, the sender, and he can fix the problem if it's on
his end, or let the recipient into the problem if it's on their
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor writes:
Sure. You get a rapid indication of an error condition. qmail by
default provides an indication of an error condition after 1 week.
I would be interesting to see (someone else do :) a study of the time
in the queue vs.
On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 01:02:53PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I haven't said what I want, beyond something better than the current
situation, so this response does not seem to be to the point unless
you think the current situation is ideal.
I am trying to come up with something myself
At 4/24/2000 04:17 PM -0400, Adam McKenna wrote or quoted:
Your apparent standpoint in this conversation, up until this paragraph, was
that qmail (or internet mail in general) is lacking some feature that you
want implemented:
[snip]
You've been answered with (for the most part) "We think things
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 16:17:27 -0400
From: Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your apparent standpoint in this conversation, up until this paragraph, was
that qmail (or internet mail in general) is lacking some feature that you
want implemented:
That feature is reliability from
On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 01:38:01PM -0700, Kai MacTane wrote:
This isn't necessarily a qmail feature request, since I can see a strong
case to be made for having this be an add-on. But it is a dissenting view
that I thought should be aired, because I'd like to counterbalance the view
I see
On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 01:31:49PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
First, a minor point. I don't think that changing queuelifetime is
good enough. It affects all messages globally. It doesn't let me say
``I need to know about this message, but not about this other
message.'' It doesn't
On 24 Apr 2000, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
First, a minor point. I don't think that changing queuelifetime is
good enough. It affects all messages globally. It doesn't let me say
``I need to know about this message, but not about this other
message.'' It doesn't tell me ``it's been a hour
Kai MacTane wrote:
At 4/24/2000 04:17 PM -0400, Adam McKenna wrote or quoted:
Your apparent standpoint in this conversation, up until this paragraph, was
that qmail (or internet mail in general) is lacking some feature that you
want implemented:
[snip]
You've been answered with (for the
Chris Hardie writes:
Unfortunately, that link appears to be broken. Brian Wightman, please
pick up the nearest courtesy phone.
It's also temporarily available as
http://www.qmail.org/qmail_bounce-0.0alpha6.tar.gz . If Brian doesn't
show up too soon, I'll change the link to point to my
On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 02:02:13PM -0700, Kai MacTane wrote:
Could you elaborate on the part about such messages being annoying to
administrators?
Administrators use email too.
--Adam
- Original Message -
From: "Brian Johnson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Qmail-List" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mon 24 Apr 2000 13:47
Subject: Re: temporary failure warning message
As things stand with qmail right now, a user sending mail through
qmail
gets one of
Hello there,
is it possible to configure qmail to send out a "temporary failure" message
or something if mail can't be delivered rightaway?
One of our users had an important mail in the queue which was returned to
him only 7 days later ('cause of a DNS failure), way too late... Some
failure
32 matches
Mail list logo
