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

Página Inicial
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Autor: Marc Haber
Data:  
Para: exim-users
Assunto: Re: [exim] Am I right that no_more has no effect within the included simple routers?
On Wed, 23 May 2012 03:03:47 -0700 (PDT), Regid Ichira
<regid23@???> wrote:
>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


Those have been taken from the Debian configuration. This is Debian's
full routers configuration (sans .if[n]def and comments, but in
order):

|begin routers
|
|domain_literal:
| driver = ipliteral
| domains = ! +local_domains
| transport = remote_smtp

|
|hubbed_hosts:
|  driver = manualroute
|  domains = "${if exists{CONFDIR/hubbed_hosts}\
|                   {partial-lsearch;CONFDIR/hubbed_hosts}\
|              fail}"
|  same_domain_copy_routing = yes
|  route_data = ${lookup{$domain}partial-lsearch{CONFDIR/hubbed_hosts}}
|  transport = remote_smtp

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

|
|dnslookup:
|  driver = dnslookup
|  domains = ! +local_domains
|  transport = remote_smtp
|  same_domain_copy_routing = yes
|  # ignore private rfc1918 and APIPA addresses
|  ignore_target_hosts = 0.0.0.0 : 127.0.0.0/8 : 192.168.0.0/16 :\
|                        172.16.0.0/12 : 10.0.0.0/8 : 169.254.0.0/16 :\
|                        255.255.255.255
|  no_more

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

|
|smarthost:
| driver = manualroute
| domains = ! +local_domains
| transport = remote_smtp_smarthost
| route_list = * DCsmarthost byname
| host_find_failed = defer
| same_domain_copy_routing = yes
| no_more


Does the no_more hurt on any of the routers where we set it? I think
that we set no_more on all routers that take parts of the upstream
default's dnslookup router. I think it is more easily understood that
way, but I am open to (convincing) arguments.

If the no_more statements don't hurt, I'd rather keep them in place
for the sake of not making unnecessary changes.

Greetings
Marc
-- 
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber         |   " Questions are the         | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany  |     Beginning of Wisdom "     | http://www.zugschlus.de/
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834