On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Rich, WhidbeyNet NOC wrote:
> Evidently, a non-0 exit code in a transport_filter means the filter
> failed utterly. In the "pipe" driver, it's too bad you can't set an
> "ignore_status" or "temp_errors" for a transport_filter. Those options
> only effect the "command" itself.
Indeed. Transport filters are not specific to the pipe transport. You
can have a transport filter for any transport. Transport filters are
assumed to be be things that normally work - they were originally
implemented for modifying messages on the fly.
> Another solution might be to modify Exim to apply "temp_errors" to the
> transport_filter command. Wouldn't that be best, for the same reasons
> "temp_errors" is used for the main pipe "command"?
No, because "temp_errors" is specific to the pipe transport, and
transport filters are not specific to the pipe transport.
I suppose that in principle some kind of new generic option such as
transport_filter_temp_errors could be invented, but it seems a bit
over-the-top to me.
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
