Add more RFC1894.

svn path=/trunk/; revision=2300

diff --git a/sink.c b/sink.c
index 6ec32d87d73820920f8952ef6889e0c3975301bf..2f5b7f9d2151d2db34c3814f713545efed32bbcb 100644 (file)
--- a/sink.c
+++ b/sink.c
@@ -256,7 +256,7 @@ static int send_bouncemail(struct msgblk *msg, int userclass,
 /* bounce back an error report a la RFC 1892 */
 {
     char daemon_name[18 + HOSTLEN] = "FETCHMAIL-DAEMON@";
-    char boundary[BUFSIZ];
+    char boundary[BUFSIZ], *ts;
     int i, sock;
 
     /* don't bounce  in reply to undeliverable bounces */
@@ -280,6 +280,8 @@ static int send_bouncemail(struct msgblk *msg, int userclass,
            "om-mani-padme-hum-%d-%d-%ld", 
            getpid(), getppid(), time((time_t *)NULL));
 
+    ts = rfc822timestamp();
+
     if (outlevel >= O_VERBOSE)
        error(0, 0, "SMTP: (bounce-message body)");
 
@@ -320,6 +322,7 @@ static int send_bouncemail(struct msgblk *msg, int userclass,
                /* Minimum RFC1894 compliance + Diagnostic-Code field */
                SockPrintf(sock, "\r\n");
                SockPrintf(sock, "Final-Recipient: rfc822; %s\r\n", idp->id);
+               SockPrintf(sock, "Last-Attempt-Date: %s\r\n", ts);
                SockPrintf(sock, "Action: failed\r\n");
 
                if (nerrors == 1)
@@ -423,7 +426,9 @@ static int handle_smtp_error(struct query *ctl, struct msgblk *msg)
         * a future retrieval cycle. 
         *
         * Bouncemail *might* be appropriate here as a delay
-        * notification.  But it's not really necessary because
+        * notification (note; if we ever add this, we must make
+        * sure the RFC1894 Action field is "delayed" rather thwn
+        * "failed").  But it's not really necessary because
         * this is not an actual failure, we're very likely to be
         * able to recover on the next cycle.
         */