Ian Zimmerman <itz@???> (Di 08 Sep 2015 00:46:03 CEST):
> On 2015-09-07 17:53 +0200, Heiko Schlittermann wrote:
>
> > After some experiments: It (transport_filter) doesn't seem to be set up
> > the same way as the pipe command. The environment is that what Exim got
> > from the caller.
>
> I solved it by making the necessary computation/decision in exim
> expansions, so I can just pass the final product (which is not
> sensitive) to the filter on the command line.
>
> It works, but I learned much more about expansions than I wanted to. In
> fact I'm afraid I might be developing bracelitis :-P
Shouldn't we create a wishlist item?
|filter_environment|Use: transport|Type: string*|Default: unset|
Or, alternativly extend the use of the pipe transport's option
'environment'. But this would be an incompatible change, probably, in
case somebody relies already on the original environment.
And, extend the interpretation of the value
filter_environment = +FOO=bar:FU=bur:-HOME
which wouldn't be incompatible. The intention should be clear. If this
syntax goes into an option for the filter environment, we could have it
backwards compatible by just *adding* environment items.
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: F69376CE -
! key id 7CBF764A and 972EAC9F are revoked since 2015-01 ------------ -
