Re: [Exim] changing from exim3 to exim4

On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:09:29 +0100 (BST) Philip Hazel <ph10@???> wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Phil Chambers wrote:
>
> > I have been running through a lot of "exim -C newconfig -d -bt" tests
> > to see that I get the same as before and have noticed a difference. I
> > have a router (used to be a director) which does a data = <lookup
> > username for this local_part> and has no_more set. For non-existent
> > local_parts the no_more made it skip to the end of the directors and
> > fail with 'unknown local-part "xxxxx" in domain "ex.ac.uk"'. With
> > exim4 I now get 'Unroutable address' as the failure. If this means
> > that the end-user is going to get a non-delivery report with that
> > explanation then I am not at all happy. The latter message is very
> > misleading because I would expect people to interpret it as unroutable
> > in networking terms, which is not the problem at all.
> >
> > How do I get back to the 'unknown local_part' type of failure?
>
> For myself, I don't think a non-technical person would immediately think
> in networking terms, but you never know. The problem is that, although
> English has so many words, we still tend to overload them. The other
> ambiguous word is "address", of course.
>
> The following item is on the Wish List:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> (76) 24-Jul-02 M A way of changing the "unrouteable address" message
>
> This applies not only when Exim runs out of routers, but also if it is stopped
> by no_more. Perhaps a generic option "fail_message", and the one from the last
> encountered router is used?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> In the meantime, you have got to use :fail: in a redirect router. If you
> can do it within the same one, that's neat. In your case you can,
> because you have no_more set. For those that want to change the message
> after, say, an accept+check_local_user router, an extra router is
> needed.
>
> Note, however, that this message will go to end users only for addresses
> in locally received messages. For messages coming in via SMTP, if you
> are verifying recipients (which is the default), the message can be
> overridden by the "message" setting in the ACL, and the default ACL does
> indeed say "unknown user".

Thank you for your typically prompt response. I wish the maintainers of other
packages were as generous with their time in solving users' problems as you have
always been.

Phil.
---------------------------------------
Phil Chambers (postmaster@???)
University of Exeter