Evgeniy Berdnikov <[email protected]> (Di 07 Mai 2013 09:37:52 CEST): > On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 10:02:35PM +0200, Heiko Schlittermann wrote: > > Evgeniy Berdnikov <[email protected]> (Mo 06 Mai 2013 21:48:19 CEST): > > > On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 07:04:36PM +0100, Klaus Ethgen wrote: > > > > I need to write special logs to a database when the mail is received and > > > > after it has been (successful or not) delivered as well as when it > > > > bounces. > > > > > > > > For the first I can use a condition in acl to call a own embedded perl > > > > script that is doing the stuff. But for the other two logging issues I > > > > did not found any way to call a perl subroutine. The best I can archive > > > > is to have a condition in the router. But this gives me no way to see > > > > the status of the delivered mail. > > > > > > > > Do you see any way to do it? > > > > > > It seems me you have no chances to catch ALL the bounce cases in routers > > > and transports: there may be situations such as insufficient memory for > > > Exim, disk overflow and others... I belive the only reliable solution is > > > to parse logs and extract relevant entries. > > > > A bounce will go through a transport, otherwise the bounce isn't a > > bounce, is it? > > The internally generated bounce mail should go through a transport, yes. > But for a situation, when Exim acts as a server and reject mail in SMTP > session, no internal mail is generated for bounce. It's unclear is this > case interesting for topic starter or not.
Rejecting a message is not bouncing it. Bouncing a message is generating
a new message. (Of course, as a result of rejection, the server being
rejected may generate a new (bounce) message, but that is not our
server.)
> > I'd say, the built-in logging facility of Exim is much more mature,
> > since it stops message reception in face of logging problems. IMHO a
> > very crucial element of a safe and secure mail service.
>
> Agree. However, writing to named pipe is so safe as writing to a file:
> if nobody reads pipe, then writer is blocked.
Agree, BUT… I'd say in case of Exim it is a difference, because Exim
checks the available space on the log file system. The available space
is only relevant, if we're really writing into files. If Exim writes
into a named pipe, we have one more level of complexity…
(see check_log_{space,inodes})
Best regards from Dresden/Germany
Viele Grüße aus Dresden
Heiko Schlittermann
--
SCHLITTERMANN.de ---------------------------- internet & unix support -
Heiko Schlittermann, Dipl.-Ing. (TU) - {fon,fax}: +49.351.802998{1,3} -
gnupg encrypted messages are welcome --------------- key ID: 7CBF764A -
gnupg fingerprint: 9288 F17D BBF9 9625 5ABC 285C 26A9 687E 7CBF 764A -
(gnupg fingerprint: 3061 CFBF 2D88 F034 E8D2 7E92 EE4E AC98 48D0 359B)-
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- ## 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/
