On Tue, 22 Apr 1997, Dr. Rich Artym wrote:
> Yeah, it must be the Monday morning blues, as I'm *not* comparing
> $local_parts against ${local_parts}-in, I'm comparing $sender_address
> against the contents of that file and using search failure to cause
> the following director statement to fail:
> require_files = \
> "${lookup{$sender_address}lsearch{DIR/${local_part}-in}{/tmp}{/fail}}";
... but require_files is already expanded, so that should work! In your
previous message you talked about expanding the local_users option. Is
this the Tuesday morning blues, or have I missed something else? Or is
there a bug that is causing that expansion not to work properly?
> I hope that this explains it a bit better, Philip. Any thoughts on
> that generic failure control mechanism that I mentioned? Exim seems
> to be growing lots of special cases but few generic mechanisms. If
> you gave us some more generic machinery, it might *reduce* your high
> workload as well as making Exim more orthogonal in its configuration.
I certainly agree with that concept. I do try to think of generic
mechanisms where I can, and they do indeed help.
Regards,
Philip
--
Philip Hazel University Computing Service,
ph10@??? New Museums Site, Cambridge CB2 3QG,
P.Hazel@??? England. Phone: +44 1223 334714
