Hi,
On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 02:10:28PM +0100, Philip Hazel wrote:
> Yes. You overrode the other message by setting "message =". If you
> remove that, you should see the other message.
I have the same problem as Peter, I have a few routers that catch
correct recipient information and decline for all others. At the end,
when all routers declined, I get the message "unrouteable address". So I
thought, let's make a redirect router that has set ":fail: no such
user" (if the domain is in local_domains or relay_domains).
I'd like to ask if it would be possible to switch priorities so that a
:fail: message makes it to the client side for the following reasons:
- exim -bt shows the :fail: message
- the log shows the :fail: message
- it is easier to catch such cases in a redirect router than to put
everything in ACLs which would only make them complex and illegible
Here is the -bt output and below a exim -bh output. Only the client side
receives "unrouteable address", the logfile gets the :fail: message.
carlo:~ # exim -oMr vircheck -bt bla@???
bla@??? is undeliverable:
unknown user
>>> calling userbounce router
>>> userbounce router forced address failure
>>> ----------- end verify ------------
>>> accept: condition test failed
>>> accept: endpass encountered - denying access
550 unrouteable address
LOG: H=localhost [127.0.0.1] F=<joe@???> rejected RCPT
bla@???: unknown user
This is my userbounce router:
userbounce:
driver = redirect
domains = +local_domains:+relay_to_domains
check_local_user = false
verify = true
check_ancestor
allow_fail
data = :fail: unknown user
Regards,
Joachim
--
*****PGP key available - send e-mail request***** - ICQ: 37225940
You may be gone tomorrow, but that doesn't mean that you weren't here today.
