Re: [Exim] transport_filter/temp_errors problems

Top Page
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Author: Philip Hazel
Date:  
To: Paul Fisher
CC: exim-users
New-Topics: [Exim] mail delivery, Re: [Exim] transport_filter/temp_errors problems; doing spam-checking without transport_filter
Subject: Re: [Exim] transport_filter/temp_errors problems
On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Paul Fisher wrote:

> For this particular transport, it would seem to make sense to be able
> to say that all errors are of a temporary nature. Being able to set
> "temp_errors = *" (where "*" excludes zero) seems to be a good way to
> specify that behavior.


Wishlisted.

> On a related note, does temp_errors have any effect for the the
> transport_filter program? If not, maybe there should be a
> transport_filter_temp_errors option?


No effect, because temp_errors is local to the pipe transport, whereas
you can have a transport filter for any transport.

As it happens, I already have an item on my infelicities list about
transport filters. Three processes are involved in a transport filter,
and if something goes wrong, it is not clear which process' error should
be the one that is reported (all 3 processes notice a problem). I'll
think about temporary errors when I get to that work item.

--
Philip Hazel            University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@???      Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.