evan@??? said:
} There are many reasons for deciding whether or not to build Qmail
} support into exim; Debian's definition of freeware should not be such
} a reason.
Yup. Now can we let this (the qmail licensing) thread die...
As for a dot-qmail director, having read the man page/spec - copy
available at
http://www.qmail.org/qmail-manual-html/man5/dot-qmail.html
its pretty much trivial.
It *would* behave differently to the qmail version in some respects, in
particular (from the error handling section)
} If a delivery instruction fails, qmail-local stops immedi-
} ately and reports failure. qmail-local handles forwarding
} after all other instructions, so any error in another type
} of delivery will prevent all forwarding.
...and...
} If a program returns exit code 99, qmail-local ignores all
} succeeding lines in .qmail, but it still pays attention to
} previous forward lines.
exim would implement its dotqmail director as a director - ie address in,
set of addresses out. The processing of all the resultant addresses would
be after the whole .qmail file had been processed, and so if one address
errors it would do so independently from the others - there would be no
"this address is only processed if the previous one succeeded".
The other question is should this be done as a forwardfile option, or as
its own director. It *would* be easy to do as a forwardfile option.
However my own feeling is that it should be done as a separate director
since its very much a small audience item. [that doesn't prevent you
stealing the forwardfile code and modifying it for the dotqmail - about an
hour's work I guess]
Nigel.
--
[ Nigel.Metheringham@??? - Systems Software Engineer ]
[ Tel : +44 113 207 6112 Fax : +44 113 234 6065 ]
[ *** Note new telephone number - old one will no longer work *** ]
[ Real life is but a pale imitation of a Dilbert strip ]
--
*** Exim information can be found at
http://www.exim.org/ ***
