Author: Torsten Luettgert Date: To: exim-users Subject: Re: [Exim] Exim+SA: spamc non-0 exit when spamd is down =
transport_filter panic
On Thu, 2003-01-16 at 14:57, Philip Hazel via COM.BOX TEMA wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, William Thompson wrote:
>
> > What I meant by ignoring it is to pass the message unfiltered.
>
> Again, I don't this should be the default. The sysadmin has configured
> Exim to use a filter; delivering without it may not be a good thing.
> (Consider a filter that is doing some kind of private encryption...)
>
> Even as an option it would not be particularly easy to do because of the
> way Exim is implemented. And I suspect it is of very minority interest.
I'm interested... but not in passing the message unfiltered (I don't
think that's a good idea, too), but having some kind of notification if
a filter fails (I use one for 7bit conversion, without which mails won't
be accepted by the receiving MTA).
Current behaviour is deferring transmission and applying the retry
rules, which will just result in another filter crash.
Having the possibility to freeze the mail after a filter error would
solve my problem.
