Re: [exim] Condition problem.

Páxina inicial
Borrar esta mensaxe
Responder a esta mensaxe
Autor: Max Lock
Data:  
Para: exim users
Temas novos: Re: [exim] Condition problem. SOLVED
Asunto: Re: [exim] Condition problem.
http://www.datanet.co.uk/default.aspx http://www.datanet.co.uk/default.aspx

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
nope :(

that failed too.

2008-11-25 17:36:05 1L51pM-0004n9-46 H=mailfeed.datanet.co.uk
[80.68.32.18] F=<max.lock@???> temporarily rejected after
DATA: failed to expand ACL string "${if and{ {eq
{$h_X-spam_flag:}{YES}{1}{0}}{eq ${lookup mysql{SELECT DISTINCT domain
FROM mail.virusscreen WHERE domain = '${quote_mysql:$domain}' AND
dumpspam = '1'}}{1}{1}{0}}} }": missing } at end of condition inside
"and" group

Thanks again!

-Max.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max Lock - Senior Systems Administrator
Datanet - Hosting & Connectivity
0845 130 6010
0845 130 6020
mailto:Max.Lock@datanet.co.uk
http://www.datanet.co.uk/
Registered Office: DATANET.CO.UK Limited, Aspen House, Barley Way, Ancells Business Park, Fleet, Hampshire, GU51 2UT Registered in England - No. 3214053
Providing Internet Solutions for Business since 1996, Datanet, over 12 years of excellence in service, support and IP solutions
http://www.datanet.co.uk/awards_and_affiliates.aspx
http://www.datanet.co.uk/datacentre_diary.aspx

-----Original Message-----

From: Graeme Fowler <graeme@???>
To: exim users <exim-users@???>
Subject: Re: [exim] Condition problem.
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:10:01 +0000


I've gone back to your original post, moved a brace to the right place
and added a logic check on the second part of the "and" group.

${if
  and{
    {eq
      {$h_X-spam_flag:}
      {YES}
      {1}
      {0}
    }
    {eq 
      ${lookup mysql{MYSQL_Q_DROPSPAM}}
      {1}
      {1}
      {0}
    }
  }
}


The fact you were missing a test - "eq" - on the second section made the
whole thing rather misleading, but as a lookup could return a statement
in itself the statement was syntactically correct *before* expansion.

Graeme