<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: mutt writes Fcc: even if the MTA fails to deliver



Michelle, et al --

Please excuse me for comign in late.  I have one question which may
clarify matters...

...and then Michelle Konzack said...
% 
% Am 2004-08-11 21:45:39, schrieb Thomas Roessler:
% > On 2004-08-11 21:42:03 +0200, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote:
% > 
% > > Please don't change this. I really want to keep a local copy, so
% > > if writing the copy fails, mutt should not send the message. And
% > > I think of problems like disc full, power outage,... which can't
% > > be detected before writing the message.
% > 
% > Agreed.
% 
% I do not agree, because if my MTA fails to deliver and I must try it 
% several times I must delete ten or  more copies in the SEND boxes...

When you resend a message, how do you do it?  Is it a simple bounce or
a true new mailing?  If it is a new mailing, with a new envelope and a
fresh Message-ID:, then it makes sense for mutt to write a fresh copy,
whereas if it's just a bounce to reinject then mutt already doesn't write
another copy.

OK, a second question (giving me a bit of leeway counting the first two
questions as really part of the same one), then.  If you send a fresh
copy instead of bouncing to reinject, why not switch to reinjecting?


HTH & HAND

:-D
-- 
David T-G
davidtg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://justpickone.org/davidtg/      Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!

Attachment: pgp4apUB0vfF1.pgp
Description: PGP signature