Nico,
Now I'm a little confused. I read your comment on the acl variables and
then Philip's response...
> I like the new acl_*-variables, but maybe it would be better to keep
> them while routing the mail (at least the acl_m-variables). This would
> save us from adding headers to hand informations from the ACL to the
> routers.
So that means they don't persist between the acls and the routers? But what
about $address_data? Looking at entry 38 under the 4.11 ChangeLog...
> 38. After verify=recipient in an ACL, the value of $address_data is the
last
> value that was set while routing the address.
Does that not mean back in the acl? Long story short, I'm actually trying
to get the address (post routing, so an actual user name) accessible in
local_scan. I understand that a single message being checked by local_scan
may have multiple recipients but I'd be content to get at least one of them.
And I can't just use the recipients_list variable from the API b/c those are
the addresses before being routed. So I made two stabs at this...
1) I tried setting
address_data = $local_part
in my router that's doing the verify. But I didn't have much luck with
expand_string("$address_data") in local_scan.
2) I tried the same thing as #1 above, but added
warn set acl_m1 = $address_data
in an acl immediately after my verify = recipient.
I then used expand_string("$acl_m1") in local_scan and still didn't get what
I wanted.
Is there a standard solution to this one? There must be a way to get at the
routed address from within local_scan b/c the verifying stage has to have
already completed. Am I just being dense?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nico Erfurth" <masta@???>
To: "Tony Earnshaw" <tonni@???>
Cc: <exim-users@???>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 11:20 AM
Subject: Re: [Exim] Exim version 4.14
> Tony Earnshaw wrote:
>
> > 4.14 is definitely a /major/ release. In as much as it puts the
> > "competition" that much further behind it (a bit like Ferrari, I'm an
> > Alfa Romeo person).
>
> I like the new acl_*-variables, but maybe it would be better to keep
> them while routing the mail (at least the acl_m-variables). This would
> save us from adding headers to hand informations from the ACL to the
> routers.
>
> > This morning, there was a sad Sendmail admin on the SA list, who
> > wondered if he could stop spammers' dictionary attacks with his MTA and
> > procmail. Another Sendmail admin told him he'd have a hard time. I let
> > them see Giuliano's Exim one-liner, hihi.
>
> Hehe, currently exim is unbeatable when it comes to flexibility, I hope
> it will be so for a while :)
>
> The question is, WHAT comes next? When I started to use exim3, I thought
> WOW!! can this be even better? But Philip proved that it's possible,
> with exim4 :)
>
> So, again a BIG thanks to Philip (and all the contributors and
> local_scan-writers) for making exim what it is, the best and most
> flexible MTA I've ever seen.
>
> Nico
