On Monday 06 February 2006 10:52, Philip Hazel wrote: > This WishList suggestion is impossible to implement. Control cannot be > given back to the routers after Exim has entered the transport phase. > Remember: all the routing happens before any of the transporting. > Fallback hosts would be the only practical possibility.
Aha, I see what you mean. The host_find_failed option (for example) is tested at the router phase and if it fails, it never reaches the transport for that router. I suppose it would be technically possible to implement something like a "smart" version of the fallback_hosts router option, but then I suppose based on what's next that you would refuse to consider doing that. > However, I am in full agreement with Stephen when he writes: > > However, asking exim to do this will violate so many normative > > standards of mail handling I am just not sure it's a good idea. A > > 5xx is a permanent reject and should be considred so ... I am sorry, > > but the wish to work around a permanent failure just seems like a bad > > idea. It is just so fundamental to the basic concepts of SMTP > > handling that I can't imagine the good outweighing the bad. I disagree with that, but since I don't have time to learn the skills to mess with the code, I'll have to live with it. Exim is great anyway, and I want you to know that I appreciate your work as well as your taking the time to discuss things like this. -- Thanks, Adam -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
