On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, John Jetmore wrote:
> I think I didn't explain myself very well. My point wasn't that the
> wording for the "not completed" section was poor, but that those lines
> didn't belong in that section at all. exigrep already includes exceptions
> for that type of message (one with which Exim is logically "finished",
> but which does not contain a "Completed" line. Specifically:
>
> if (index($_, 'Completed') != -1 ||
> (index($_, 'rejected') != -1 &&
> /rejected (?:by local_scan|by non-SMTP ACL|after DATA)/o))
So it does. That looks like a previous hack that caught some specific
cases. The problem is that keeping this list of patterns up-to-date is
not something that is going to happen. So there will always be cases
that it misses. Now that I've thought of the cunning "missing <= line"
trick, I'm more inclined to shorten the above pattern back to just
"Completed", and leave everything else to the new code that will list
such messages as "not accepted".
But of course you are free to argue with me... :-)
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service
Get the Exim 4 book: http://www.uit.co.uk/exim-book
