Author: William Thompson Date: To: exim-users Subject: Re: [Exim] Exim+SA: spamc non-0 exit when spamd is down = transport_filter panic
> > How about just ignoring the filter if it failed? >
> You certainly can't do that! In general, email could then be vanishing
> without any evidence as to why. Remember, messages *pass through* a
> transport filter; if it screws up, the message is probably destroyed.
What I meant by ignoring it is to pass the message unfiltered.
> > or maybe a "filter_failure_ok" option?
>
> I'm afraid I am not convinced that this is a good idea. If certain kinds
> of failure are acceptable to a particular application, then that
> application should be taking appropriate decisions. As has been pointed
> out, this can be achieved by a wrapper if necessary.
I thought about that, but it was only a suggestion.
