Re: [exim] Re: Bug in exim

Russell Stuart wrote:
>
> In my original bug report I rabbited on about Kaspersky and
> LMTP. They were irrelevant. It boils down to this: if you
> mark an address as unseen in the archive router, and then
> the message gets deferred, a recipient marked as "unseen"
> will be dropped.
>
> My first thought was that if a router has the "unseen" flag
> set it should not put the original address on addr_succeed.
> Routing has after all not succeeded - the address still has
> to be processed. But I am tired and need to get some sleep,
> so there are probably a 1000 good and obvious reasons why
> that won't work.
>
> I really need to get this fixed. I would like to beg,
> borrow or steal a quick hack to get around this until a
> decent solution comes along. Can one of you who actually
> knows the internals of Exim help?

This is just a guess, and I do think it's a hack, but if you do the
unseen delivery to the archive in a System Filter, then that delivery
shouldn't be associated with any particular address, and it might avoid
this problem.

- Marc