On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Theo Schlossnagle wrote:
> That seems ideal for scanning messages. I am actually concerned about
> logging as well. Also being able to effect the rest of the handling
> path that Exim takes is very useful.
I implemented local_scan() as an initial experiment in this kind of
bolt-on facility. If it is successful, we'll find out what the problems
are and maybe improve the way it is done. Then perhaps additional hooks
can be added at different places, in the same style. Logging is an
obvious example.
> Does local_scan allow you to
> affect rewrites, discard messages, and effect the SMTP session with the
> client? Those would be great places for hooks.
Not rewrites. It allows you to change the return code given right at the
end of message reception (after the "." has been received; that's when
it is run). It also allows you to change the recipients. If you delete
all the existing recipients, that has the effect of discarding the
message.
> The logging side basically needs a single logging function that takes
> (at least), the log message, the suggested destination
> (main,reject,panic), and a debugging level.
Exim 4 doesn't have debugging levels or logging levels. It has flag bits
instead. I guess they'd have to be exported to such a function.
Philip
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
