Re: [exim] Ok, this time with feeling!

On Tuesday 05 October 2004 09:06, you wrote:
> > 1. A less opaque error message when the #*&$(@#*&
> > external command isn't present.
>
> The problem is that Exim does not really know. As I said
> above, it *usually* means an execution problem, but there
> is nothing to stop a program or script returning 127
> directly. In fact, I see that when this happens directly
> for a pipe, Exim's message is a bit clearer. I'll try to
> improve the transport filter case in a similar manner.


You're the expert. (Gawd help us if you get hit by a bus...)

In this case it was the call from exim to spamc that failed,
because spamc didn't exist.


I can certainly see why expansions and conditions cannot be
checked at start time. I'm just learning condition syntax.
I hope that this is something that will change to a more
readable format. One of the reasons I switched to exim
years ago was that the conf files were much more readable
than sendmail conf files. Alas, conditions are pushing in
this direction. (I have to use the bracket matching feature
in vi to parse them just reading them.)

Perl went through a stage like this. Larry eventually put a
bunch of features in that he called "eye candy" to make it
easier for human parsers.



--
Sherwood Botsford
St. John's School of Alberta