Ron White wrote: > On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 15:24 +0100, Ian Eiloart wrote: >> --On 14 May 2010 14:57:59 +0100 Ron White <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> A couple of child like questions for my own sanity here; >>> >>> 1. Am I right in thinking you can have multiple condition = statements >>> in a router? (I know you can do 'and' but I have three conditions to >>> check in a router) >> I think so. I'm not sure, but I don't see any reason why not. > > > Just confirming you *can't* do that by the look of it: > > 2010-05-14 16:02:26 [5074] Exim configuration error in line 545 > of /etc/exim/exim.conf: > "condition" option set for the second time > > So it's a no. Damn and blast..... back to the drawing board. > >
Ron, That is not as 'limiting' as it might seem at first glance. Think, for example, of the entire router 'chain' as equivalent in some ways to a single ACL clause with multiple conditions *within* it. So - while some conditionals may or may not still need to be complex individually, the path to fine-grained control is to have many routers, each with ONE bespoke conditional. And now and then an 'unseen' or several (I've had as many as seven such steps). At the end of the day, exactly the same level of control can be acheived, just with a good deal more partially-duplicated text. And - gieven logging options - it may be easier to debug. CAVEAT1: Some of us are lazy and simply push most of the complexity off to an SQL call, which also gets around the read-only nature of an acl_m once DATA phase has been exited. CAVEAT2: SQL infrastructure does not come cheap, even if you are using it on the box for other needs anyway. Bill -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
