Re: [Exim] Pipe return_output vs return_fail_output

Top Page
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Author: Philip Hazel
Date:  
To: Mark Morley
CC: exim-users
Subject: Re: [Exim] Pipe return_output vs return_fail_output
On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, Mark Morley wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I have a pipe transport that currently uses return_fail_output. It works
> as expected except that the error message sent back shows the command
> path and the exit code.
>
> If I use return_output then I get a much nicer looking error message that
> doesn't display the command path or exit code.
>
> Problem is I can't use return_output because it doesn't honour EX_TEMPFAIL.
>
> Is there any way to make the error message for return_fail_output look
> like the one for return_output? It doesn't look like errmsg_file will
> eliminate the command path and exit code while retaining the failed
> address, but perhaps I'm missing something.


A quick look at the code suggests that what it does is not quite what
you describe. You should get the error stuff in both cases, but not for
the EX_TEMPFAIL case. However, I haven't actually run any tests, and I'm
afraid I haven't got time to do that immediately. However, I have made a
note to check this all out when I can find time.

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