I was thinking about doing a parameter for RemoteDelivery like: <failureNoticeAtAttempt> 4 </failureNoticeAtAttempt>
Which would indicate that the failure notice was to be sendt out after attempt 4. As the notice text should then include something like "trying for x more days" the notice would have to be configurable as well, which is also high on what I am planning to submit a patch for, mainly because I live in a country where english is not the main language, so people get a little confused about the "Hi. This is the James mail server at " stuff. BTW, Thanks for the nomination Noel. --Søren On Wednesday 29 October 2003 21:47, Hontvari Jozsef wrote: > (on bounces I also mean failed attempts, before the configured retry > attemps ended, this event could be used for such a notification) > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hontvari Jozsef" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "James Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 9:43 PM > Subject: Re: [PATCH] RemoteDelivery multiple delay times > > > I am not against this patch, actually this was one of the most important > > missing features for me. The current configuration is better in one (and > > only one) issue, it does provide feedback after about a day to the > > sender. > > > > I have no idea about the implementation of DSN, but sending bounces to a > > processos with some mail attributes was a nice idea, I don't remember who > > wrote it. I would be happy if RemoteDelivery doesn't bounce back to the > > _from_ address, instead of the reverse path. If I have a few hours I will > > fix this. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "James Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 8:58 PM > > Subject: RE: [PATCH] RemoteDelivery multiple delay times > > > > > > I think it causes more trouble then benefit if it delays a mail for > > not > > > > less > > > > > > > then 5 days _without_ notifying the sender after 24 hours, saying > > > > that > > > > "I > > > > > am > > > > > > > James, your email is delayed, but I am still trying to deliver". > > > > > > I understand your thought about DSN (something still pending to be > > done), > > > > but how does the current state differ from what we'll have after > > > merging this change? As it currently stands, James will iterate for a > > > certain number of times, delaying 6 hours between. > > > > > > RemoteDelivery is an area with room for enhancement in many ways. DSN > > is > > > > one of them. Do you have any ideas for how you would like the problem > > of > > > > sending a DSN within the delivery process addressed? > > > > > > --- Noel > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Søren Hilmer, M.Sc. R&D manager Phone: +45 70 27 64 00 TietoEnator IT+ A/S Fax: +45 70 27 64 40 Ved Lunden 12 Direct: +45 87 46 64 57 DK-8230 Åbyhøj Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
