Hi, thanks for your answer.
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 03:49:14PM +0300, Erkki Lintunen wrote: > It does not matter whether the route_list rule is generated the way I > have done it or directly set in config files. I tested both. > This isn't about functionality of exim4 configuration utilities but > possibly an unintended change in behaviour of exim4 binary. I see. It would probably be easier to communicate with upsteram if we could see the version where you have directly configured stuff in the configuration files. I think the issue is that upstream might have changed the way that macros are parsed. Here is our code: .ifndef DCsmarthost DCsmarthost=smtp.zugschlus.de::587 .endif smarthost: debug_print = "R: smarthost for $local_part@$domain" driver = manualroute domains = ! +local_domains transport = remote_smtp_smarthost route_list = * DCsmarthost byname host_find_failed = ignore same_domain_copy_routing = yes no_more When you enter "remote_smtps_smarthost" in update-exim4.conf.conf, you end up with DCsmarthost being defined as "mailhost::465 remote_smtps_smarthost", which is obviously misparsed in the tokenization stage of exim's configuration parser. Changing the actual router code to say route_list = * DCsmarthost byname remote_smtps_smarthost seems to work for me. Please try that. Greetings Marc -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Leimen, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421
