Re: [exim] Trouble/misunderstanding verifiying...

Top Pagina
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Auteur: Tony Finch
Datum:  
Aan: Marco Gaiarin
CC: exim-users
Onderwerp: Re: [exim] Trouble/misunderstanding verifiying...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Marco Gaiarin wrote:
>
> and AFA i've understood with no_verify i skip the verification for this
> router, or... hem... could i be so stupid? ;)


no_verify means that the router is skipped when verifying the address. If
no router matches when verifying an address then the address is considered
to be invalid.

> verify mean only that this router are passed when in address
> verification mode, so simply i skip the only router could match?


I think that's correct (if I have understood you).

The only time you want to use no_verify is if you need to do something
different when verifying as opposed to when delivering. This is almost
never necessary. When it is necessary, you usually have a pair of routers:
one with no_verify that handles delivery, and another which handles the
same addresses at verification time. The second router usually has
verify_only set.

For example, in the default configuration the userforward router is
skipped during verification because it requires special privilege to run,
and Exim is not privileged at verification time. However verification
still works for userforward addresses because the localuser router can
also handle these addresses. The localuser router does not have
verify_only set because it also acts as a fallback router for users
without a .forward file.

Tony.
--
<fanf@???> <dot@???> http://dotat.at/ ${sg{\N${sg{\
N\}{([^N]*)(.)(.)(.*)}{\$1\$3\$2\$1\$3\n\$2\$3\$4\$3\n\$3\$2\$4}}\
\N}{([^N]*)(.)(.)(.*)}{\$1\$3\$2\$1\$3\n\$2\$3\$4\$3\n\$3\$2\$4}}