On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Philip Hazel wrote:
> 2. Or do you mean "if MX exists for a domain, and points to one of
> these hosts"? Have you spotted hosts_treat_as_local"?
I meant this one. I did look at hosts_treat_as_local, and tried it, and
decided that it didn't work the way I thought it should. After receiving
this message, I retried it and it still didn't work. Then I read the
spec.txt listing for it again (couldn't find it quickly in the book...)
and realized I was probably using it incorrectly. I tried at least three
combinations of relaying-related options, but I didn't try the right one,
which was having hosts_treat_as_local _and_ relay_domains_include_local_mx
both set at the same time. Not sure if I was being overly colored by how
smail does it or just being stupid, but the end result was the same.
Now for another question. spec.txt lists several times when
hosts_treat_as_local has an affect, and I'm not familiar enough with all
stages of exim's processing to know exactly what they mean. Will having
hosts_treat_as_local set to the names of our mailbaggers affect things
"at other times when it is checking whether a host to which a message has
been routed is the local host."
If there are other affects of setting this option other than the one I
want, I may still be better off w/ the patch. Can you help me understand
what those other affects might be, if any?
> Actually, I'm being lazy, aren't I? If I read the patch I guess I can
> figure it out. Will do so tomorrow.
Don't bother =)
Thanks for answering my mail
--John
> Philip
>
> --
> Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
> ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
>
>
> --
> ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
>
