> -----Original Message----- > On 2008-07-25 at 14:42 +0100, Chambers, Phil wrote: > > The use of ':+:' to separate groups of addresses is > described in the > > spec for hosts_randomize with a route_list example. It is > not clear > > if the same syntax will work for route_data. > > route_data just provides the routing rules that would be > found by matching route_list, so what's valid syntax for a > routing rule in either is valid in the other. > > Last paragraph of the introductory text in "20. THE > MANUALROUTE ROUTER", first paragraph in "20.4 Format of the > list of hosts", which isn't quite as clear as it might be > since the relevant syntax is only described above, rather > than as being part of the general syntax. > > Also, reading the source. Well, skimming. > > manualroute_router_entry() (the entry point for handling the router at > all) first extracts from route_list or route_data before > doing anything else. The route_list case does not do any > mangling of the data for hosts_randomize. The local variable > "randomize" is set to the copy of the router option block's > hosts_randomize variable, is changed by presence of the > routing options "randomize"/"no_randomize" and then passed to > host_build_hostlist() as the third parameter. > > host.c:host_build_hostlist() then uses this generically. > > So, you're safe, the same syntax is used. > > -Phil
Thanks for clarifying that for me. In the light of that, have changed my config now and it is looking good so far. Phil. -------------------- Phil Chambers Postmaster University of Exeter -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
