Re: [EXIM] no reliable way to use batch-smtp input

Página Principal
Apagar esta mensagem
Responder a esta mensagem
Autor: Philip Hazel
Data:  
Para: Ian Jackson
CC: exim-users
Assunto: Re: [EXIM] no reliable way to use batch-smtp input
On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Ian Jackson wrote:

> I seem to remember some discussion about this before, but I can't find
> it in the mail archives.


I don't recall it, but my memory isn't as good as it was.

> The problem is that if Exim wants to return an error in response to a
> bsmtp message it sends a message to postmaster containing the error
> response that would have been given. Missing are any other details,
> including the erroneous message. Exim then exits with status zero.


It sends the error to postmaster only if the caller is trusted.
Otherwise it sends it to the caller.

I believe the idea was not to delay a whole batch of messages just
because of a problem with one of them. Not quite sure what you mean by
"missing are any other details". The code appears to be written so as to
include any envelope sender, recipients and header lines that it has
read before detecting the error.

> 1. sender_verify_batch is turned off by default.


Incompatible change. I don't like incompatible changes. Some
unsuspecting person always gets bitten.

> 2. If Exim finds itself wanting to return an SMTP error code during
> batch SMTP input it prints an error message to stderr which gives the
> text of the SMTP error _and the line number_ (or some indication of
> where in the input the error occurred), and exits immediately with a
> nonzero status. The calling program can then know that the input was
> not successful and take some appropriate action.


This would have to be optional, because it is an incompatible change.
Note that an error code would mean that *some* of the input was not
successful. Earlier messages in the batch would have been sent.

> If Phil (or others) don't have time to implemnt this I may well do it
> myself.


I do not make any use of BSMTP; it was very much a bolted-on facility
for UUCP users who wanted to use it. What do other BSMTP users think of
this idea? I need additional opinions!

I will add it to the wish list, but I'm not extending Exim just at the
moment; I'm waiting for the 2.1x releases to settle down while trying to
consolidate documentation.

-- 
Philip Hazel            University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@???      Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.



--
*** Exim information can be found at http://www.exim.org/ ***