On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 10:03:30AM +0000, Philip Hazel wrote: > On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Patrice PILLOT wrote:
>
> > I have put the following rule in my conf file :
> > bla@??? bli@??? Eh [snip] > > and here is what I get :
> > UC104 3# exim -brw bla@???
> > sender: bla@??? [snip] > And this is what I get:
> $ exim -brw bla@???
> sender: bli@??? [snip] > What's the difference? Well, one difference may be this:
> > UC104 5# exim -bV
> > Exim version 2.04 #2 built 10-Dec-1998 01:24:02
> That is a *very* old version of Exim.
>
Thank you Philip (for your reply and for exim !)
I knew that. I was just experimenting, for demo purposes) a sendmail
replacement on a old SGI O2 which will soon be rebuilt (new disks, OS
upgrade...). In fact our version is the freeware.sgi.com version
(compiling the latest exim would have meant upgrading gcc (to avoid
the gethostbyname() bug) which is currently impossible for other
"local" reasons on which I have no hold).
Nevertheless, I've run a 2.0x exim on my debian box at home until
recently and this kind of rewriting rules worked perfectly well.
Is my problem a 2.04 bug or a *SGI* 2.04 version bug ? And by the way,
is there anybody who has precompiled 3.x exim for IRIX 6.3 or higher
(I fear to be forced to keep gcc 2.7 for some time here and would
prefer to avoid the double install since I don't need a more recent
(gcc) version for other purposes, it's just a (gcc 2.7) dev box)?
