Hi Phil, Thanks for the quick response. Supporting arbitrary commands being forcibly wrapped when they come from a router is exactly what we are needing to accomplish.
I would be happy to attempt to cook up a patch to implement "override_router" and push it to github, or wherever is best? Thanks -Nick On Mar 29, 2013, at 8:25 AM, Phil Pennock <[email protected]> wrote: > Ideally, <[email protected]> for patches. Posting this to exim-dev instead per your comment. > >> We needed a way to force piped commands though a wrapper so I came up with >> this. >> >> https://github.com/bdraco/exim/commit/1c2a22eab9e0a3c9db56da6d3970d3ced0e23036 > > So there are two sources for commands to a pipe transport. The > "command" option, which can just be set as: > > command = prefix -args -- ${lookup{foo}wherever{normal_wrapped_command}} > > The other is the Router providing a command via "$address_pipe", in > which case command is ignored. > > Does `allow_commands` + `restrict_to_path` not do what you need? > > I suspect that if we need to support arbitrary commands being forcibly > wrapped when they come from a Router, it would be simpler, with fewer > code paths to test and maintain, if we just add a boolean > "override_router" or somesuch. If that boolean is set true, then we > still evaluate the "command" option, exactly as before, and the > administrator can create a Transport which says: > > override_router > command = prefix -args -- $address_pipe Thats exactly what we need. The commands are coming in from filter filer. > > Would this cover your needs? > Or do the existing facilities cover your > needs after all? > > Regards, > -Phil > -- ## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
