Philip Hazel <ph10@???> probably said:
> On Tue, 29 Sep 1998, Peter Radcliffe wrote:
> > Child process of procmail_pipe transport returned 67 from command:
> > While this is useful, its not very informative to those who don't know
> > about the existance of sysexits.h.
>
> The problem is that a process started by Exim to run a pipe is entirely
> at liberty to return any exit code it fancies. The definitions in
> sysexits.h don't seem to have any force of standardization, and indeed,
> the comment in the file on Solaris 2.5 says:
The problem, as you say, is non-standards.
> > Wish list: translation of the exit code to some more informative text.
> > There doesn't seem to be a standard function to do this, but a case
> > on EX_foo should be correct.
> > Since not all programs will return standard exit codes, be able to turn
> > it off/on for particular pipe transports ?
... which is why I suggested being able to turn it on/off, so if you know
something does/doesn't return the sysexits codes, you can change it
as appropriate.
> Perhaps I can dream up some wording along the line of "a common meaning
> of this code is xxxx, but your mileage may vary". For the signals, one
I thought about that, but users get confused enough by bounce messages
when the wording is clear and simple :(
> can be more definite. This won't be in the next release because I want
> to get that out quite quickly for the bug fix.
Fairy Snuff.
James FitzGibbon <james@???> probably said:
> exit_code_messages = dbm;/opt/mail/etc/exit_code_messages.db ?
>
> Just a thought. It would be simple to make a small program to iterate
> through sysexits.h and produce a sample text file suitable for
> exim_builddbm. Users could then change the messages or add new ones if
> their installation required it.
I think James has a good idea here, have a standard db file for sysexits
codes and be able to define more of your own for anything else ...
P.
--
pir pir@??? pir@??? pir@???
--
*** Exim information can be found at
http://www.exim.org/ ***
