hi, On 6/9/07, Ted Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As soon as you accept, no further ACLs are looked at. It looks like if > you don't find a virus, you then hit the accept target. Try changing > your logic to DENY or DEFER. With the deny ACL, you will not have to use > endpass.
Yup. You're right. Works nicely (well, so far ...) I'm fairly certain I had a 'great' reason for choosing the accept/endpass approach here. But, for the life o' me atm, I dunno why :-} On 6/10/07, Heiko Schlittermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > i've Exim 'talking' to remote clamd/spamd daemons over TCP, > > > > av_scanner = clamd: 10.0.0.105 3310 > > spamd_address = 10.0.0.105 783 > > Both do not resend the mail, they just evaluate, right? > The message is not modified using av_scanner and/or spamd. That is correct. Well, at least that's the _intention_. All header mods are done in the calling ACL within Exim. > May be I'm wrong, but if a (clean and nice) message comes in from let's > say <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> it is accepted because the sender is not in the > no_virus_scan list and the aux_acl_virus acl accepts it. I do not see > any reason why the next acl rule should be asked. > > Only if the message comes from +no_virus_scan it hits the next acl. It seems I got the operation of the endpass bass-ackwards. Swear I read that silly passage in the book a bunch o' times ... Thanks for the clarification! Cheers. -- ## 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/
