Troy Muller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 20 November 2000 at 09:46:09 -0800
>> My basic advice is "it's best not to mess with it". This is a
>> large, complex, can of worms, and it's not (in practice) governed
>> by standards or even written documentation.
> If this is the case, how come all most all mtu's have a similar
> format to bounced mail? Maybe this is a case for making it a
> standard? Since we want complete inoperability between all the
> mailers out there, we should push for a standard.
(Your quoting came out backwards; I've fixed it above to prevent
confusion).
If you think MTAs mostly have similar formats, you're not looking at a
wide enough variety of traffic.
A new standard would almost certainly not be widely adopted, so a new
one would only *add* to the confusion. The existing DSN spec is not
supported by qmail, and is in general too complex to be a good choice.
--
David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon/
Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/
