On Thu, 2 Apr 1998, Dave Rynne wrote:
> >From looking at the code, it looks like exim tries to rewrite every
> address it sees into luser@??? format. Due to the fact that some
> of our customers don't appear to believe in upgrading software every
> now and then, we do need bang path addresses.
Quote from section 1.3 ("Limitations") of the manual:
. Exim is intended for use as an Internet mailer, and therefore handles
addresses in RFC 822 domain format only. It cannot handle 'bang paths',
though simple two-component bang paths can be converted by a straightfor-
ward rewriting configuration.
Sorry, but I decided from the start to support only RFC 822 addresses.
Of course, that doesn't of itself lock out the use of UUCP - many people
use it with domain addresses, and have done so for many years.
I know that some people are fudging the use of bang paths by getting
Exim to rewrite them to domain format by rewriting rules such as
^([^!]+)!(.+)@your\.domain$ $2@$1
or
^([^!]+)!([^@%]+)(.+)$ $2%$1$3 R
(which operates recursively, turning a bang path into a 'percent-hacked'
domain address) but this kind of thing works only in certain special
cases.
--
Philip Hazel University Computing Service,
ph10@??? New Museums Site, Cambridge CB2 3QG,
P.Hazel@??? England. Phone: +44 1223 334714
--
*** Exim information can be found at
http://www.exim.org/ ***
