[exim] Am I right that no_more has no effect within the incl…

Startseite
Nachricht löschen
Nachricht beantworten
Autor: Regid Ichira
Datum:  
To: exim-users
Betreff: [exim] Am I right that no_more has no effect within the included simple routers?
Consider the following two routers:

1) nonlocal:
      driver = redirect
      domains = ! +local_domains
      allow_fail
      data = :fail: Mailing to remote domains not supported
      no_more


2) dnslookup_relay_to_domains:
      driver = dnslookup
      domains = ! +local_domains : +relay_to_domains
      transport = remote_smtp
      same_domain_copy_routing = yes
      no_more


Am I right that, in both cases, if the router run, it can not decline?
Therefore, the no_more has no effect. It can be omitted without any
consequences.
I think spec.txt mentions a similar situation in a discussion about the manualroute.
(Note that the following spec.txt discussion is about two other routers, not those
I showed above.)

    $ grep -A34 '* The manualroute router' spec.txt | tail -10


    There is no difference in behaviour between these two routers as they
    stand. However, they behave differently if no_more is added to them. In the
    first example, the router is skipped if the domain does not match the
    domains precondition; the following router is always tried. If the router
    runs, it always matches the domain and so can never decline. Therefore,
    no_more would have no effect. In the second case, the router is never
    skipped; it always runs. However, if it doesn't match the domain, it
    declines. In this case no_more would prevent subsequent routers from
    running.


    $