On Thu, 29 Jun 2006, Robert Millan wrote: > On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 04:55:18PM +0100, Philip Hazel wrote: > > > > I am watching this thread, but my first feeling is that it is totally > > against the overall Exim "approach" to put it where you have. Deciding > > what local parts mean (alias/mailinglist/local login/etc) happens in > > routers, and it doesn't seem right to hard wire it into the smtp_in > > module unconditionally. (Can't remember if you checked the domain, but > > that needs flexibility too - not all domains are the same.) > > What do we check in the domain, just that it belongs to us?
What domains mean is also part of the router logic. Exim itself has no built-in idea of which domains belong to it. > > As to your question above, I'm not sure what you are asking. There are > > only the three possibilities (accept/reject/defer) that one can give to > > a RCPT command. What is the fourth that you are thinking of? > > I haven't spent much time looking at this, but if you just want to give > > a particular 5xx response to a RCPT command when a user sets up a > > .redirect file, > > Yes, that's precisely what I want. Technicaly it's a reject, just with a > particular code (551). I can see two good ways of doing this: the minimal way, which is to add an ACL redirect verb which returns a 551 instead of a 550; and the complete way, which would be to add a :fail_551: action to the redirect router which causes the existing require/deny verbs to do the appropriate thing. The former is less invasive to Exim's code, but is fiddly to configure. I don't think this will be of any practical use in the public Internet, because all MTAs treat 551 the same as 550. It is not good enough as a work-around for SPF's brokenness because users ignore bounce messages because they do not understand them. It might be of use within a closed environment. For example, at the moment the LMTP servers on our message store machines must have a local MTA in order to send out messages that have been redirected by a Sieve script, and as well as the extra resource consumption this makes messages harder to trace. However the 251 and 551 responses aren't enough: they don't allow for multiple forwarding addresses and they don't allow for a message that has been delivered locally as well as forwarded. Tony. -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dotat.at/ ${sg{\N${sg{\ N\}{([^N]*)(.)(.)(.*)}{\$1\$3\$2\$1\$3\n\$2\$3\$4\$3\n\$3\$2\$4}}\ \N}{([^N]*)(.)(.)(.*)}{\$1\$3\$2\$1\$3\n\$2\$3\$4\$3\n\$3\$2\$4}} -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
