RE: [Exim] Verify = helo not working in acl_smtp_helo?

Pàgina inicial
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Autor: Eli
Data:  
A: 'Stephen Gran', exim-users
Assumpte: RE: [Exim] Verify = helo not working in acl_smtp_helo?
Crazy!

I didn't know I could do a NOT operator on a verify (I'd never seen it done
in an example, so thought it impossible - well more didn't know the
syntax... My guess would have been verify != helo or verify = !helo :)).

I did it, and it works as expected now - thank you :D

I believed the documents were incorrect, until I just re-read the section
about this and now realise I'm quite the fool :P It said something about
how it returns true if the contents were verified - I was thinking of this
as more of a general true if verification was *done*, not so much as a
success/fail toggle (which thinking about being true if verification was
*done* is completely useless).

Thanks again!

Eli.

-----Original Message-----
From: exim-users-admin@??? [mailto:exim-users-admin@exim.org] On Behalf
Of Stephen Gran
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:16 AM
To: exim-users@???
Subject: Re: [Exim] Verify = helo not working in acl_smtp_helo?

On Sun, Dec 21, 2003 at 09:58:09PM -0500, Eli said:
> No I don't believe that is it, because in the output of running exim with
> -d, it shows it evaluating the condition but it just says that the

condition
> failed to trigger the warn statement (thus, verification has passed):
>
> 28805 using ACL "acl_check_helo"
> 28805 processing "warn"
> 28805 check verify = helo
> 28805 warn: condition test failed
> 28805 processing "accept"
>
> See, it processed the warn statement, did the verification (which was
> actually done earlier):
>
> Verification failed, thus meaning that "verify = helo" should return a

false
> value. So I don't think the verification stuff is working incorrectly, I
> think it's just the final result code that's stored that is either

incorrect
> (or contrary to what documentation says it should be), or that "verify =
> helo" is working backwards or only one-wayish (to always return true).


Don't you want:
        !verify = helo
?  It seems to me that the statement reads:
if (verify = helo) ; then warn "...."; fi
(rough logic).  So when verify = helo fails, you get no warn statement.


Shot in the dark and all,
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Stephen Gran                  | I know not how I came into this, shall  |
|  steve@???             | I call it a dying life or a living      |
|  http://www.lobefin.net/~steve | death?   -- St. Augustine               |

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

--

## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users Exim
details at http://www.exim.org/ ##

---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses]



---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses]