Re: [exim] condition problem in routers

Wakko Warner wrote:
*selectively snipped*

>> Second, I *think* you will need to split that into two separate SQL
>> calls. ELSE simplify. See below.
>
> That was 2 seperate SQL statements.
>

ACK - what I meant was each on their own 'condition = ' call.
(which a router may not be happy with anyway ...)

*snip*

>>> The entire ${lookup is not supposed to return anything.
>>>

One begs to ask why use it, then ..

;-)

*snip*

> Would be nice if there was a "null" router available. I plan on adding
> another "null" router to gather data for several others (and yes, I know
> that exim caches queries)

In the practical sense, any router that does not call a 'viable'
transport IS a 'null' router, though blackholing or specifically
transporting to /dev/null OR using an 'unseen' (that works) to reach a
router that is not 'null' may be considerably kinder to your queue AND
NOT generate DFB's

One might may or may not want suhc a router to verify. Or might want to
use the DB to verify instead of a router-walk at all.

BTW - speaking of DFB's - if you want your sender_verify probes to be
'handled' correctly, it may help to make their calls in such a manner as
to not appear to be originating on a zombified WinBox whose rDNS doesn't
match anything you have published in *your* DNS.

Check your logs for my attempt to honor your request to be 'CC'ed...

;-)

Bill