On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 moseley@??? wrote:
> > Oh, one thing, have you tried smtp_return_error_details?
>
> I don't want the expanded error messages. But I did try setting that to
> true but it didn't cause $acl_verify_message to print anything -- if
> that was what you were suggesting.
Yes, I was just wondering (without having time to check).
> Yes, I read that in Your Fine Book, too (one reference was on page 329).
> Which is why I was asking, because I originally added those four warn
> statements to the acl_check_rcpt section and didn't get any headers at
> all.
>
> I'm still learning so I figured I'm doing something wrong.
If you can repeat the effect, please send me evidence in the form of
your configuration etc so that I can try to repeat it.
> BTW -- is there a way to *remove* a header in an ACL? For example, if I
> add a header as a flag (e.g. flag as spam) it would be nice to know that
> there's isn't already that header in the incoming message. I see the
> section in the spec (43.13) but that's after the ACL where I would be
> adding the header.
No there isn't, and if there were, it could only be for the DATA ACL,
because until then, no headers have been received.
The original idea was that if you really want to do fancy things with
headers and stuff, you should use the local_scan() interface. As always,
things have developed somewhat since then.
In the latest releases, where the ACL variables are preserved, you could
set an ACL variable instead, and sort out the headers in a system
filter, I suppose.
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
Get the Exim 4 book: http://www.uit.co.uk/exim-book
