On 17/04/2023 14:08, Bill Cole via Exim-users wrote:
There's a rational basis for an exception for 5xx before MAIL FROM, when the
target only has the connection parameters and HELO name to use as a basis for
rejection. Re-routing via a fallback path isn't entirely unjustifiable in that
case,
On 17/04/2023 12:26, Jeremy Harris via Exim-users wrote:
The documentation does answer these questions. Was some of it unclear?
You are absolutely right. I did read the documentation before posting,
but I missed the bit where it says received_header_text is expanded each
time it is used.
On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 08:54:37AM +0100, Graeme Fowler via Exim-users wrote:
> > How might I configure my routers to ignore an initial 5xx response from the
> > first router and attempt another (and maybe future) deliveries through an
> > alternate router?
>
> If you get a 5xx error from the
• Lance Lovette via Exim-users [2023-04-16 21:01]:
[...]
> How might I configure my routers to ignore an initial 5xx response from the
> first router and attempt another (and maybe future) deliveries through an
> alternate router?
Maybe recipient verification callout facility could be used, and
On 2023-04-17 at 03:54:37 UTC-0400 (Mon, 17 Apr 2023 08:54:37 +0100)
Graeme Fowler via Exim-users
is rumored to have said:
On 17 April 2023 03:08:29 Lance Lovette via Exim-users
wrote:
How might I configure my routers to ignore an initial 5xx response
from the
first router and attempt
The documentation does answer these questions. Was some of it unclear?
--
Cheers,
Jeremy
--
## 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/
> I'm going to make the very obvious and morally correct answer: you don't.
I truly understand and at a basic level agree with that position. I'm
simply trying to balance that with what is analogous to a short-term
network outage. I need to have a failover in place to keep the business
c
On 17/04/2023 04:33, Ian Z via Exim-users wrote:
On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 07:11:51PM +0100, Sebastian Arcus via Exim-users wrote:
One thing I have to try and figure out is how Spamassassin does the
SPF checks. Does it look at all the Received: headers, and if at
least one of them matches one
This question is related to my other thread which deals with Exim being
used in a front-end / back-end configuration, with back-end machines
handling separate email domains. I thought it would be better to post a
separate thread, in case it would help someone find it one day.
I would like the
On 17/04/2023 02:01, Lance Lovette via Exim-users wrote:
How might I configure my routers to ignore an initial 5xx response from the
first router and attempt another (and maybe future) deliveries through an
alternate router?
You can't. A permenent error response for a message is definitive.
On 17 April 2023 03:08:29 Lance Lovette via Exim-users
wrote:
How might I configure my routers to ignore an initial 5xx response from the
first router and attempt another (and maybe future) deliveries through an
alternate router?
I'm going to make the very obvious and morally correct answer:
Hello, I think section 53.15 should be explicit that the log_selector
only applies to the main log. There are some log messages, namely
those from synprot_error in smtp_in.c, that go *both* to main and
reject log. It depends on log_selector if it in fact shows up in the
main log, but there is not
12 matches
Mail list logo
