On Thu, 8 Mar 2007, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> MX records, yes. However, manualroute is, well, manual, so it can be argued
> that this rule doesn't have to be obeyed (as long as one knows what one is
> doing).
Oh sure, sorry, I had missed that we were talking about manualroute.
> What happens if hosts_randomize is set? Is the randomisation performed after
> the local host and subsequent hosts have been discarded, or does Exim
> remember that the list is randomised and in that case refrains from
> discarding hosts following any occurrences of the local host in the
> (randomised) list, or is it necessary to avoid having the local host in the
> list, lest the list be randomly truncated?
I'd have to read the code....it seems that the randomizing is done
first. In fact, this is documented in 20.5. There is no memory of the
randomizing - that could cause problems, I suppose. This looks like two
orthogonal features interacting in an unforseen way.
I found this comment:
/* A local host gets chopped, with its successors, if there are previous
hosts. Otherwise the self option is used. If it is set to "send", any
subsequent hosts that are also the local host do NOT get chopped. */
However, that applies only when the first host is local.
It occurs to me that if "self=send" is set, perhaps it should just leave
the host list entirely alone. But this is not the current action.
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service
Get the Exim 4 book: http://www.uit.co.uk/exim-book
