At 08:59 AM 12/2/97 +0000, Philip Hazel wrote:
>It could, I suppose, but is it worth the work when #domain probably does
>essentially the same thing? At the moment, it simply does a textual scan
>of the recipient addresses; it does not analyse them into local parts
>and domains. It would have to do this and it would have to record which
>kind of search it was doing. At the moment, it in effect just runs Exim
>with the existing -R option.
Well, it's a question of (drum roll) compatibility with Microsoft
Exchange, which apparently only supports '@' (or possibly no specifier, if
that makes sense??)
>I've just re-read the RFC and remembered why I used # and not @. What
>Exim actually does with the -R option is attempt to deliver any message
>that contains an address that matches - but it tries *all* the addresses
>in that message, not just the one that matched. Thus the string given is
>in some sense a means of identifying a particular set of messages. To
>implement @ (deliver only to addresses in the given domain) would
>require a lot more apparatus to be built.
Ah, I see, so exim would be attempting (potentially) a lot more deliveries
than just the ones requested. In my application, that's probably not going
to happen a lot (the customer in question would have to be on a list or
exploder on our system). I'll try patching and see how it works.
--
Jawaid Bazyar | Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions
Interlink Advertising Svcs | for Small Business
bazyar@??? | P.O Box 641 (303) 781-3273
--The Future is Now!-- | Englewood, CO 80151-0641 (303) 789-4197
fax
--
*** Exim information can be found at
http://www.exim.org/ ***
