[Exim] queue_only not obeyed when -bS or -bs used ?

Página superior
Eliminar este mensaje
Responder a este mensaje
Autor: Tom Kistner
Fecha:  
A: exim-users
Temas nuevos: [Exim] SOLVED: queue_only not obeyed when ....
Asunto: [Exim] queue_only not obeyed when -bS or -bs used ?
hello everyone,


I have a small problem here with running my "exiscan" virus scanner.

I use queue_only to make exim queue up all mail, and then control
dequeuing with my own perl script.

Problem: when local clients (for example, the cron daemon or Pine) submit mail
for delivery, they oviously use the -bS or -bs flags for STDIN message
delivery instead of using tcp port 25.

In this case, exim promptly delivers the message, despite queue_only being
set.

I scanned the docs for another option to make exim queue mail only and found
smtp_accept_queue_per_connection, which SHOULD do the trick, according to
the docs:

--------------cut------------------------------------------
    This option limits the number of delivery processes that Exim starts
    automatically when receiving messages via SMTP, whether via the daemon or
    by the use of -bs or -bS. If the value of the option is greater than zero,
    and the number of messages received in a single SMTP session exceeds this
    number, subsequent messages are placed on the spool, but no delivery
    process is started. This helps to limit the number of Exim processes when
    a server restarts after downtime and there is a lot of mail waiting for it
    on other systems. On large systems the default should probably be
    increased, while on dial-in client systems it should probably be set to
    zero (that is, disabled).


---------------cut-----------------------------------------


... but still, exim promptly delivers the message.

Then, I did a manual test with -d9 and -bs, and exim did NOT immediately
dequeue the message.

My conclusion: both cron and pine use another command line flag to force
exim to immediately dequeue the message despite queue_only being set.

My question: what is this flag and how can I (possibly) work around this
annoying behaviour ? :)


thanks,

    /tom



--
Tom Kistner <tom@???>
ICQ 1501527 dcanthrax@efnet
http://duncanthrax.net