Re: [exim] Routing outgoing email only

Página superior
Eliminar este mensaje
Responder a este mensaje
Autor: Mehul N. Sanghvi
Fecha:  
A: Peter Bowyer
Cc: exim-users
Asunto: Re: [exim] Routing outgoing email only
Peter Bowyer wrote:

> Mehul N. Sanghvi <mnsanghvi@???> wrote:
>
>>Hochstrasser Benedikt wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mehul N. Sanghvi wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>send_to_gateway:
>>>      driver = manualroute
>>>      domains = !+virtual_domains
>>>      transport = remote_smtp
>>>      route_list = * smtp.comcast.net

>>>
>>>In the FAQ, "local_domains" is used instead of "virtual_domains". I
>>>do have virtual_domains setup correctly with the domains I am using.
>>>
>>>The problem with this is that incoming email also gets routed
>>>smtp.comcast.net which is not something I want. How do I go about
>>>narrowing the above to fit only the outgoing scenario ?
>>><<<
>>>
>>>Domains = !+virtual_domains : !+local_domains
>>>
>>
>>Thanks !! that seems to be working. I'll have to re-read the specs
>>on local_domains and "@" being in it.
>
>
> I find it easier to consider what you want the router to do from first
> principles, rather than get hung up on what the domainlists happen to be
> called. This is clearly a case when you want the router to handle everything
> except mail which is delivered locally. So a domainlist which defines what
> is delivered locally is called for - you can use it negatively in this
> router.
>
> @ is a neat shortcut for the local host name. So the simplest domainlist to
> use here would just contain '@' - meaning mail addressed to the local host.
> Add any other locally-delivered domains to this list.
>
> Peter (probably not helping)
>
>


Peter,

     Actually that helps a lot more (at least someone like me) then you
realise.


     Coming from a Postfix world, Exim is an alien world, and getting
to know how to think in terms of the alien world, rather then just 
knowing what to say and what to do, is, in my humble opinion, much better.


      From my perspective, Exim seems like a Sendmail with much better
configuration language.  I know that "much better" is an understatement.
Gives you the same capabilities to shoot yourself in the foot.



cheers,

       mehul