Re: [exim] Route_data format

> -----Original Message-----
> On 2008-07-25 at 14:42 +0100, Chambers, Phil wrote:
> > The use of ':+:' to separate groups of addresses is
> described in the
> > spec for hosts_randomize with a route_list example. It is
> not clear
> > if the same syntax will work for route_data.
>
> route_data just provides the routing rules that would be
> found by matching route_list, so what's valid syntax for a
> routing rule in either is valid in the other.
>
> Last paragraph of the introductory text in "20. THE
> MANUALROUTE ROUTER", first paragraph in "20.4 Format of the
> list of hosts", which isn't quite as clear as it might be
> since the relevant syntax is only described above, rather
> than as being part of the general syntax.
>
> Also, reading the source. Well, skimming.
>
> manualroute_router_entry() (the entry point for handling the router at
> all) first extracts from route_list or route_data before
> doing anything else. The route_list case does not do any
> mangling of the data for hosts_randomize. The local variable
> "randomize" is set to the copy of the router option block's
> hosts_randomize variable, is changed by presence of the
> routing options "randomize"/"no_randomize" and then passed to
> host_build_hostlist() as the third parameter.
>
> host.c:host_build_hostlist() then uses this generically.
>
> So, you're safe, the same syntax is used.
>
> -Phil

Thanks for clarifying that for me. In the light of that, have changed
my config now and it is looking good so far.

Phil.
--------------------
Phil Chambers
Postmaster
University of Exeter