At 4:44 AM -0500 1/10/02, Tapani Tarvainen is rumored to have typed:
It is sometimes confusing to the maintainer as it isn't obvious at first whether the message has been passed or not, especially for those using mailreaders that won't show X-Diagnostic: header lines by default.
He, he...seems to me it's easier to change a damaged mail client that won't allow the user to determine what headers should be shown/hidden to a more reasonable one that will. (I'm using a version of Eudora Pro from 1997 that allows me to choose what headers are hidden, so it isn't exactly a difficult nor a new thing.)
Also, X-Diagnostic: lines could have been in the original message, making the confusion even worse.
But remembering that X-Diagnostic: headers are added from top to bottom, the order in which they were added is obvious. (Er...I am kinda curious how a rejected message could already have X-Diagnostic: headers when it comes in, though. I mean, are you bouncing rejected messages back to the list in any situation? Or are you suggesting someone who is posting to your list would add an X-Diagnostic: header field for some reason?)
But the question is, would that be a good idea?
I wouldn't do it myself, and I wouldn't necessarily recommend it to anyone else, either, but there's no reason _you_ shouldn't do it if it makes your life easier. The whole _point_ to using cool open-source software is that you can make it work _your_ way instead of mine, Philip's, or anyone else's. The hacks like this that are universally advantageous eventually end up as part of the release code, while hacks that aren't can still be used by those who find them a help.
Any better suggestions on how to make bounces stand out?
I suppose you could munge the subject (formail -i"Subject: ***REJECTED FOR STUPID SYNTAX!!!!!!!!") if you needed something that yelled at you enough; I use that method to mark messages rejected by the content-type or over-quote pre-filters which are returned to me. But since I'm not a real fan of munging subjects, _it_ isn't something I'd recommend to others, either. I'm embarassed to admit I do it because I'm lazy; even though an X-Diagnostic: header would be the "correct" way of reporting the problem, I want to see the reason for the rejection without even opening the message.
Charlie