On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Tony Finch wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Marilyn Davis wrote:
> >
> > Parsing the $received_protocol gives all the info needed for a
> > delivery of this sort, so a lookup isn't necessary -- but getting to
> > the right router without a lookup is.
>
> The problem with your router as written is that the router preconditions
> have a fixed order - see section 3.11 of the spec. I recommend that people
> use this order when writing their routers, i.e. start with the router's
Great idea! Thank you for that.
I just unscrambled the order on all my routers to match the testing
order. I wonder if you have some other suggestions -- for the
non-testing statements?
> driver, then any preconditions in the order they are tested, then the rest
> of the options.
> http://www.exim.org/exim-html-4.40/doc/html/spec_3.html#SECT3.11
>
> What you can do as an alternative is make use of the fact that the domains
> precondition is expanded, so instead of what you wrote (in the order of
> testing and reformatted for clarity):
>
> domains = ! +local_domains
> condition = ${if and{{ eq{$received_protocol}{local} } \
> { eq{INBOUND_EMAIL}{no} } \
> { !def:sender_address }} \
> {yes} {no} }
>
> you can write:
>
> domains = ${if and{{ eq{$received_protocol}{local} } \
> { eq{INBOUND_EMAIL}{no} } \
> { !def:sender_address }} \
> {!+local_domains} {} }
Of course! Works like a charm.
Thank you so much dot-at-dot-at-dot-at.
Marilyn
>
> Tony.
>
--
