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

Page principale
Supprimer ce message
Répondre à ce message
Auteur: Regid Ichira
Date:  
À: exim-users
Sujet: Re: [exim] Am I right that no_more has no effect within the included simple routers?
There is already a thread for that subject. I hope this message will get
into it.

> Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 10:48:18 +0200
> From: Marc Haber
> Message-ID: <E1SYZ98-0007da-DE@???>
>
> On Wed, 23 May 2012 03:03:47 -0700 (PDT), Regid Ichira 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.
>



I think the no_more has significance for dnslookup_relay_to_domains and
for dnslookup. It has no effect for nonlocal and smarthost.
One advantage for keeping the no effect no_more in place is not making
unnecessary changes. One might argue whether keeping that no effect
directive makes the default configuration more, or less, readable.
My opinion is that a concise configuration is better.