On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 02:41:04PM +0100, David McLaughlin wrote:
>
> The defer switch looks at the spam-preference (reject or tag) of the
> first recipient of the message and then uses the spam-preference to
> set the scan-mode for the message. The defer switch then 'defers'
> any other recipient who spam-preference does not match the current
> scan-mode.
We do the same thing too, mainly for the 'postmaster' address to bypass
some of the less necessary filters.
> I am wondering if this problem could be solved by changing the
> 451 to 450, which can be interpreted as 'mailbox unavailable'?
Probably, although a system that aborts the entire message on a 451
might well be similarly b0rken for any 4xx code.
> Are there any arguments against changing the 451 to 450?
Not really, actually 450 seems the best fit of the codes defined in the RFC.
> If this is considered to be a good idea, where in the source
> code should I try this change?
Just upgrade exim to 4.63, then specify the code in your ACL message
modifier, e.g.
defer condition = ${test for differing preferences here}
message = 450 Deferred - please try this recipient again later
