Author: Adam Funk Date: To: exim-users Subject: Re: [exim] Using %D in the logfile directive in a filter?
On 2009-07-03, W B Hacker wrote:
> Adam Funk wrote: >> BTW, I have one other concern. Is it possible for a badly written
>> logfile or logwrite instruction in a filter to cause mail to be lost? > Ordinarily not.
>
> Further, Exim will 'usually' place a line in the log describing (as best it can)
> what failed to work.
>
> If, for example, a variable cannot be expanded, a conditional is not structured
> in a workable manner, or a dirtree/file cannot be found or written to, that can
> cause an acl clause 'set' to be bailed out of. That could leave a message on the
> queue OR cause a rejection with the far-end seeing, for example 'temporary local
> problem' - but either way there is a trail.
>
> NB: all of these would ordinarily be default log entries unless you have
> provided customized failure messages. It may pay to do that = putting some
> unique ID as to where the call came from into each message to speed troubleshooting.
>
> CAVEATS:
>
> 1) If 'log_selector = ' has been set to very low verbosity, some or all of the
> entries might be absent.
>
> If so, you might wish to try it for a time with 'log_selector = +all', then
> ratchet that back down afterwards so you don't eat too much disk space.
>
> 2) I am assuming similar behaviour for filters - especially in that they may
> call router/transport sets - as for in-session acl's.
>
> I've never personally needed an Exim filter, so I may be wrong about that.
