Re: [Exim] custom reason for a forced verify failure

Startseite
Nachricht löschen
Nachricht beantworten
Autor: Dave C.
Datum:  
To: Andreas Pettersson
CC: Philip Hazel, exim-users
Betreff: Re: [Exim] custom reason for a forced verify failure
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Andreas Pettersson wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Philip Hazel wrote: B
>
> > > So I really would like to be able to have a custom reason for the
> > > failure, as with the prohibition_message option, but this doesn't
> > > seem to be possible with a receiver verification.
> >
> > You need to set up a custom verification failure. If example.com is a
> > local domain, try a director like this:
> >
> > custom_fail_verify:
> > driver = aliasfile
> > search_type = lsearch
> > verify_only
> >
> > and in the file, put lines like
> >
> > foo.bar: :fail: Left our employ
> >
> > If example.com is not a local domain, then you have to fudge things up
> > using a router that recognizes the addresses somehow, and forces them to
> > become local so that you can then use a director like the above. This is
> > messy (maybe one day...). Something like this:
> >
> > route_to_fail_verify:
> >   driver = domainlist
> >   domains = example.com
> >   local_parts = lsearch;/that/file
> >   route_list = * localhost byname
> >   self = local    
> >   verify_only 

> >
>
> Thanks, that's exactly what i needed.
>
> I assume that I have to use a separate router/director for each sub
> domain that I handle.


You could theoretically use an aliasfile director that included the
domain as well as the local part.. I've never done that, so I'm not
sure how you configure it. (But I know it has been done)

user@???    :fail:    User killed by klingons
foo@???    :fail:    User lost in space


>
> > > I can't find any prohibition_reason for receiver_verification and my
> > > debug sessions shows that prohibition_message is never checked when
> > > the verify fails.
> >
> > The prohibition stuff is only implemented for policy rejections;
> > verification doesn't count as such. I know; it's arguable ....
> >
> Well, since I have to use verification to impose receiver policys
> I would argue for verification being a kind of policy rejection. :)
> (Or argue for real receiver policys)
>
> Anyhow, Thanks for exim, it sure makes my life a little bit easier.
>
> /Andreas Pettersson
>
>
>
> --
> ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
>


--