On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 11:01:54PM +0200, V. T. Mueller, Continum said:
> Hello,
>
>
> Can fallback_hosts be combined with a different interface option
> in the same transport?
>
>
> Under certain circumstances I have mails waiting on one server
> because the next hop is unreachable. I can easily cope with that
> situation by making use of fallback_hosts, relaying messages over
> another machine that does have a direct path.
>
> Where I´m stuck right now is when the remote_smtp transport needs
> the interface option point to a nic where the intermediate relay
> host is not reachable. Telling exim to use a specific interface
> when using fallback_hosts should do the job. I just haven´t found
> a way to accomplish this.
>
> Or is there a more elegant way to route those messages? I thought
> for a moment about ignoring the target ips in the general outbound
> router, handling them in a second by pointing to a different
> transport. Using two routers appears to be somewhat quirky to me,
> though. If ever possible I would like to see those messages go
> down one router, being differentiated on the transport level.
I think you do want two routers, but a single transport. I'm assuming
you have something like a LAN behind machines that also have public
addressing, and what you want to do is send to another machine on the
LAN when the route to the internet is down. Maybe I'm misreading you,
though. If this is the case, use ignore_targtet_hosts for your LAN
addresses, and put them in a LAN router, and then use the LAN address
for the fallback host. Or was that misunderstood, and a waste of
advice? On rereading your message, it seems like you may also be doing
bonding or something.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Gran | First study the enemy. Seek weakness. |
| steve@??? | -- Romulan Commander, "Balance of |
| http://www.lobefin.net/~steve | Terror", stardate 1709.2 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
