Tim Legant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [ ... ]
>
> Don't thank me so fast. I woke up this morning and realized it won't
> work for any MTA but qmail. :-(
Well, I'm glad that I was busy today. I'm just getting to this now.
> [ ... ]
>
> I opted to use 99 as the "error" code (even though confirming,
> dropping, etc. aren't really errors). This is the same return code
> that qmail uses to mean "successful, but stop processing".
I believe that this is correct. And also, Courier expects 99 under the
same conditions.
> Because the other MTAs have no equivalent error code, you *don't* want
> maildrop/procmail to pass this code back to the MTA. I have no idea
> what Exim/Postfix/Sendmail will do with it. That means your maildrop
> processing, for example, should look like this
I agree, with one small clarifying point: when using maildrop under
Courier, I _do_ want to pass back the 99 error code, since Courier
handles it the same way as qmail.
> [ ... ]
>
>> EXITCODE=0
>>
>> exception {
>>
>> xfilter "/usr/local/bin/runTmda"
>>
>> EXITCODE=$RETURNCODE
>> if ( $EXITCODE == 0 )
>> {
>> # We will only be here if runTmda (and therefore, tmda-filter)
>> # accepts the message and returns a zero exit code.
>>
>> # DO FURTHER PROCESSING HERE
>> }
>>
>> }
>
> I don't think you need to test $EXITCODE or $RETURNCODE inside the
> exception block, since if xfilter returned non-zero, you will
> immediately jump to the end of the exception block. Therefore, inside
> the block you already know that the $RETURNCODE was 0.
I didn't know that a 99 triggers an exception; I thought that only
occurred with the other non-zero codes like 75. But I could easily be
wrong about this, and therefore I need to investigate more.
In any case, thanks for the second patch. I'm going to test it now
and report back shortly.
Stay tuned ...
--
Lloyd Zusman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_____________________________________________
tmda-users mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-users
