There is already a thread for that subject. I hope this message will get into it.
> Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 10:48:18 +0200 > From: Marc Haber > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > > On Wed, 23 May 2012 03:03:47 -0700 (PDT), Regid Ichira wrote: > >1) nonlocal: > > driver = redirect > > domains = ! +local_domains > > allow_fail > > data = :fail: Mailing to remote > domains not supported > > no_more > > > >2) dnslookup_relay_to_domains: > > driver = dnslookup > > domains = ! +local_domains : > +relay_to_domains > > transport = remote_smtp > > same_domain_copy_routing = yes > > no_more > > Those have been taken from the Debian configuration. This is Debian's > full routers configuration (sans .if[n]def and comments, but in > order): > > |begin routers > | > |domain_literal: > | driver = ipliteral > | domains = ! +local_domains > | transport = remote_smtp > | > |hubbed_hosts: > | driver = manualroute > | domains = "${if exists{CONFDIR/hubbed_hosts}\ > | > {partial-lsearch;CONFDIR/hubbed_hosts}\ > | fail}" > | same_domain_copy_routing = yes > | route_data = > ${lookup{$domain}partial-lsearch{CONFDIR/hubbed_hosts}} > | transport = remote_smtp > | > |dnslookup_relay_to_domains: > | driver = dnslookup > | domains = ! +local_domains : +relay_to_domains > | transport = remote_smtp > | same_domain_copy_routing = yes > | no_more > | > |dnslookup: > | driver = dnslookup > | domains = ! +local_domains > | transport = remote_smtp > | same_domain_copy_routing = yes > | # ignore private rfc1918 and APIPA addresses > | ignore_target_hosts = 0.0.0.0 : 127.0.0.0/8 : > 192.168.0.0/16 :\ > | > 172.16.0.0/12 : 10.0.0.0/8 : > 169.254.0.0/16 :\ > | > 255.255.255.255 > | no_more > | > |nonlocal: > | driver = redirect > | domains = ! +local_domains > | allow_fail > | data = :fail: Mailing to remote domains not > supported > | no_more > | > |smarthost: > | driver = manualroute > | domains = ! +local_domains > | transport = remote_smtp_smarthost > | route_list = * DCsmarthost byname > | host_find_failed = defer > | same_domain_copy_routing = yes > | no_more > > Does the no_more hurt on any of the routers where we set it? I think > that we set no_more on all routers that take parts of the upstream > default's dnslookup router. I think it is more easily understood that > way, but I am open to (convincing) arguments. > > If the no_more statements don't hurt, I'd rather keep them in place > for the sake of not making unnecessary changes. > I think the no_more has significance for dnslookup_relay_to_domains and for dnslookup. It has no effect for nonlocal and smarthost. One advantage for keeping the no effect no_more in place is not making unnecessary changes. One might argue whether keeping that no effect directive makes the default configuration more, or less, readable. My opinion is that a concise configuration is better. -- ## List details at https://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/
