Evgeniy Berdnikov <bd4@???> (Di 07 Mai 2013 09:37:52 CEST):
> On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 10:02:35PM +0200, Heiko Schlittermann wrote:
> > Evgeniy Berdnikov <bd4@???> (Mo 06 Mai 2013 21:48:19 CEST):
> > > On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 07:04:36PM +0100, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
> > > > I need to write special logs to a database when the mail is received and
> > > > after it has been (successful or not) delivered as well as when it
> > > > bounces.
> > > >
> > > > For the first I can use a condition in acl to call a own embedded perl
> > > > script that is doing the stuff. But for the other two logging issues I
> > > > did not found any way to call a perl subroutine. The best I can archive
> > > > is to have a condition in the router. But this gives me no way to see
> > > > the status of the delivered mail.
> > > >
> > > > Do you see any way to do it?
> > >
> > > It seems me you have no chances to catch ALL the bounce cases in routers
> > > and transports: there may be situations such as insufficient memory for
> > > Exim, disk overflow and others... I belive the only reliable solution is
> > > to parse logs and extract relevant entries.
> >
> > A bounce will go through a transport, otherwise the bounce isn't a
> > bounce, is it?
>
> The internally generated bounce mail should go through a transport, yes.
> But for a situation, when Exim acts as a server and reject mail in SMTP
> session, no internal mail is generated for bounce. It's unclear is this
> case interesting for topic starter or not.
Rejecting a message is not bouncing it. Bouncing a message is generating
a new message. (Of course, as a result of rejection, the server being
rejected may generate a new (bounce) message, but that is not our
server.)
> > I'd say, the built-in logging facility of Exim is much more mature,
> > since it stops message reception in face of logging problems. IMHO a
> > very crucial element of a safe and secure mail service.
>
> Agree. However, writing to named pipe is so safe as writing to a file:
> if nobody reads pipe, then writer is blocked.
Agree, BUT… I'd say in case of Exim it is a difference, because Exim
checks the available space on the log file system. The available space
is only relevant, if we're really writing into files. If Exim writes
into a named pipe, we have one more level of complexity…
(see check_log_{space,inodes})
Best regards from Dresden/Germany
Viele Grüße aus Dresden
Heiko Schlittermann
--
SCHLITTERMANN.de ---------------------------- internet & unix support -
Heiko Schlittermann, Dipl.-Ing. (TU) - {fon,fax}: +49.351.802998{1,3} -
gnupg encrypted messages are welcome --------------- key ID: 7CBF764A -
gnupg fingerprint: 9288 F17D BBF9 9625 5ABC 285C 26A9 687E 7CBF 764A -
(gnupg fingerprint: 3061 CFBF 2D88 F034 E8D2 7E92 EE4E AC98 48D0 359B)-
