On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 at 11:49am, Philip Hazel wrote:
> You can make use of no_verify and verify_only to set up completely
> different routers for the two cases.
Ah, that was the information I was missing. Thanks! It seems I have been
making use of that bug for a while. I have changed the setup here so there
is a router which only verifies the sender, and the two routers for
actually delivering the message now have no_verify set, as suggested.
> I will take a more serious look at your patch; at first glance I'm not
> sure what it does differently.
The sender is rewritten just before verification, so
sender_address_unrewritten is set to its old value and so the address is
not rewritten again. However, when the sender address is verified,
sender_address is set to <> as desired, but then it is set back to the
value of save_sender, which itself was previously set to be the sender
address *before* it was rewritten. So there's a flag saying
'sender_address has been rewritten' and yet the sender address has been
restored to its original value.
I'm not sure my patch is the right way to do it - I've only just started
to explore the Exim source to try and work out this problem - but it
certainly fixes it here.
Many thanks,
Dave
- --
Dave Turner http://linux.clare.cam.ac.uk/~dct25/
dct25@??? +44 7773 784486 (Orange)
