Greetings
Without more information on your setup I can't give a finite
solution (not being a guru I would hesitant to do it anyway) but on my
setup I simply create a list of email addresses comma delimited in the
"alias" field of the database.
If you are new to exim or not a guru (like me) th
Heiko Schlittermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You could accept the messages from authenticated clients first.
>
> accept authenticated = *
> deny!verify = reverse_host_lookup
As pointed out in the other mail, this works after moving the check to
a later stage after smtp-auth users
Mike Cardwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Move the check into the scl_smtp_mail acl rather than the connect
> acl.
Ah okay, this works fine. I wanted to save some traffic to block them
earlier but this is not much savement I suppose. I did not know about
the acl_smtp_mail stage so I did not eve
Greetings
Not being familiar with vexim, take this under advisement but can't
you simply add an aliase with multiple recipients comma delimited?
How would one limit mail to this group only from members of the
group? IE If you are not a member you cannot send to the group.
___
Is there any way to implement exchange-like group aliases in exim.conf?
I use exim+vexim sql schema. What I need is to be able to setup some group
membership and when email arrives with dest addr [EMAIL PROTECTED] it
will be delivered to every member of that group
--
## List details at http://
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 09:41:20PM +0100, Mike Cardwell wrote:
> I think there's one major piece of the puzzle that you're missing. All
> the acl's *are* run before a message is accepted. It is then stuck in the
> queue and passed to the routers, as you suggested. *However*, in the rcpt
> acl you c
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 08:03:19PM +0100, Peter Bowyer wrote:
> You can, but during a verify operation the headers won't exist, as
> you've discovered. During the delivery operation they do. You can
> separate the two cases with the 'verify_*' options.
Thanks, adding verify = false fixed my prob
Dear List Members,
I'm new to exim but I need to implement a forward SMTP server like this:
domain: xxx.com
Table in MYSQL with (at least this informations):
- address (i.e. [EMAIL PROTECTED])
- fwd1 (i.e [EMAIL PROTECTED])
- fwd2 (i.e [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Is it possible in Exim?
Do I need som
Carlo Wood wrote:
>> When called as verification from a RCPT ACL this is correct, yes.
> I don't see debug output for non-verification, shouldn't the last
> time it passes through the router show that the header is present?
I wonder _why_ you even want to do your routing depending on the To:
hea
>>> We've been here before. If you can find a way to tell that the sender
>>> has gone away without trying to read from the input file descriptor, it
>>> would also solve the problem of "delay" hanging around when the other
>>> end has disappeared. We had a discussion about this about a year ago (
* on the Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 10:20:44PM +0200, Carlo Wood wrote:
>>> /me wonders why nobody told me that.
>> [looks back at thread]
>> That's because you didn't mention where the router was being run (ie. at
>> which point in the transaction). Now we know, and you know that you
>> can't do this i
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 08:06:09PM +0100, Graeme Fowler wrote:
> When called as verification from a RCPT ACL this is correct, yes.
I don't see debug output for non-verification, shouldn't the last
time it passes through the router show that the header is present?
Can I use debug_print to print a
On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 20:55 +0200, Carlo Wood wrote:
> I just realized that from the full output you can see
> that the DATA command (and thus all headers) have not
> been processed yet at the moment that an (RCPT TO)
> address is being routed...
When called as verification from a RCPT ACL this is
On 02/04/07, Carlo Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 08:12:57PM +0200, Carlo Wood wrote:
> > The rest is not relevant.
>
> I just realized that from the full output you can see
> that the DATA command (and thus all headers) have not
> been processed yet at the moment that an
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 08:12:57PM +0200, Carlo Wood wrote:
> The rest is not relevant.
I just realized that from the full output you can see
that the DATA command (and thus all headers) have not
been processed yet at the moment that an (RCPT TO)
address is being routed...
Thus, you CANNOT use $h
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 07:22:13PM +0200, Sander Smeenk wrote:
> Quoting Carlo Wood ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > Is it possible to route messages on the base of
> > > " X-headers "
> > This is exactly what I need too.
> > No matter what I tried, it seems that $header_* is not defined/usable
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 07:22:13PM +0200, Sander Smeenk wrote:
> Quoting Carlo Wood ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > Is it possible to route messages on the base of
> > > " X-headers "
> > This is exactly what I need too.
> > No matter what I tried, it seems that $header_* is not defined/usable
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 07:06:50PM +0100, Graeme Fowler wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 18:51 +0200, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> > No it should not. "def" takes a variable name (including header_*:); the
> > dollar sign would cause $header_To: to be expanded and whatever it contains
> > to be used as
On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 18:51 +0200, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> No it should not. "def" takes a variable name (including header_*:); the
> dollar sign would cause $header_To: to be expanded and whatever it contains
> to be used as the variable to check.
Oops. Only half-reading the question is, evide
Quoting Carlo Wood ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > Is it possible to route messages on the base of
> > " X-headers "
> This is exactly what I need too.
> No matter what I tried, it seems that $header_* is not defined/usable
> in a router definition :/ (See my previous mail)
Hey! But values set i
On Monday 02 April 2007 18:42, Graeme Fowler wrote:
> You missed the $ off header:
>
> condition = ${if def:header_To: {yes}{no}}
> should be
> condition = ${if def:$header_To: {yes}{no}}
No it should not. "def" takes a variable name (including header_*:); the
dollar sign would cause $header_To:
On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 18:33 +0200, Carlo Wood wrote:
> Ok, let me try again.
>
> The following router:
>
> spamtest:
> debug_print = "R: spamtest for $domain"
> domains = "${if exists{CONFDIR/hubbed_hosts}\
>{partial-lsearch;CONFDIR/hubbed_hosts}\
> fail}"
>
Ok, let me try again.
The following router:
spamtest:
debug_print = "R: spamtest for $domain"
domains = "${if exists{CONFDIR/hubbed_hosts}\
{partial-lsearch;CONFDIR/hubbed_hosts}\
fail}"
condition = ${if def:header_To: {yes}{no}}
driver = manualroute
sam
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 05:18:08PM +0100, Peter Bowyer wrote:
> On 02/04/07, Carlo Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > condition = ${if match [EMAIL PROTECTED] {1}}
>
> You mean $h_To:
> (note the trailing colon on the header name)
Yes, I just copied this particular case from
http://www.exim.org
On Monday 02 April 2007 18:02, Carlo Wood wrote:
> I am trying to route mail as function of the existance of a header.
> Because everything is failing so far, I am doing tests. My latest
> test is:
>
> spamtest:
> debug_print = "R: spamtest for $domain"
> domains = "${if exists{CONFDIR/hubbed_h
On 02/04/07, Carlo Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> condition = ${if match [EMAIL PROTECTED] {1}}
You mean $h_To:
(note the trailing colon on the header name)
Peter
--
Peter Bowyer
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim detail
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 06:04:45PM +0300, Michael Zanin wrote:
> Dear Collegues,
>
> before two suns will meet together in my head,
>
> Is it possible to route messages on the base of
>
> " X-headers "
This is exactly what I need too.
No matter what I tried, it seems that $header_* is
On 02/04/07, Michael Zanin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear Collegues,
>
> before two suns will meet together in my head,
>
> Is it possible to route messages on the base of
>
>" X-headers "
>
> (headers of incoming messages serve as rules for delivery to next relay)
>
>
> The problem
Dear Collegues,
before two suns will meet together in my head,
Is it possible to route messages on the base of
" X-headers "
(headers of incoming messages serve as rules for delivery to next relay)
The problem is, that "manualroute" driver routes only by domains,
"redirect" driv
Hi,
I am trying to route mail as function of the existance of a header.
Because everything is failing so far, I am doing tests. My latest
test is:
spamtest:
debug_print = "R: spamtest for $domain"
domains = "${if exists{CONFDIR/hubbed_hosts}\
{partial-lsearch;CONFDIR/hubbed
On Monday 02 April 2007 16:40, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
> Just a wild guess
> Does the sending site have a Cisco PIX in the data stream? If so get
> them to insert it completely into the orifice of choice belonging to
> the person owning the box or alternatively switch off SMTP fixup.
>
>
Ryan Cartwright wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Exim version 4.63 running on Debian Etch (2.6.17-2).
>
> I've been scouring the archives and FAQs and found some similar issues
> but not exactly matching this one and I am still a little confused so
> with apologies if I have missed a solution, here goes...
Just a wild guess
Does the sending site have a Cisco PIX in the data stream? If so get
them to insert it completely into the orifice of choice belonging to
the person owning the box or alternatively switch off SMTP fixup.
Nigel.
--
[ Nigel Metheringham [EMAIL PROTECT
* on the Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 11:31:38AM -0400, Richard P. Welty wrote:
> for messages received via SMTP, does exim simply for a process for
> delivery, or does it explicitly exec a new process?
>
> that is to say, if i am considering using some embedded perl
> to manage a delivery process, am i
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Richard P. Welty wrote:
> for messages received via SMTP, does exim simply for a process for
> delivery, or does it explicitly exec a new process?
It forks. After all, there may be another message arriving on the same
SMTP connection.
--
Philip HazelUniversity o
Hello Florian
My version of exim under debian are : 4.63-17 (debian testing/etch on ia64)
I match theses lines on /var /log/kern.log
Mar 27 10:00:55 nova kernel: exim4(9861): unaligned access to
0x6003eb17, ip=0x2168d510
Mar 27 10:00:55 nova kernel: exim4(9861): unaligned access
for messages received via SMTP, does exim simply for a process for
delivery, or does it explicitly exec a new process?
that is to say, if i am considering using some embedded perl
to manage a delivery process, am i loading perl once when the
daemon is started, or reloading perl for every delivery
Hi all,
Exim version 4.63 running on Debian Etch (2.6.17-2).
I've been scouring the archives and FAQs and found some similar issues
but not exactly matching this one and I am still a little confused so
with apologies if I have missed a solution, here goes...
We have inconsistent inbound data t
On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 11:27 +0100, Philip Hazel wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
>
> > Even if it's not a bug in Exim, I think it's something that could be
> > improved.
> > Exim should be able to check if the sender has gone away before sending the
> > final OK. Not in all c
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> > We've been here before. If you can find a way to tell that the sender
> > has gone away without trying to read from the input file descriptor, it
> > would also solve the problem of "delay" hanging around when the other
> > end has disappeared. We had
On Monday 02 April 2007 12:27, Philip Hazel wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> > Even if it's not a bug in Exim, I think it's something that could be
> > improved. Exim should be able to check if the sender has gone away before
> > sending the final OK. Not in all cases, but at l
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> Even if it's not a bug in Exim, I think it's something that could be
> improved.
> Exim should be able to check if the sender has gone away before sending the
> final OK. Not in all cases, but at least in the case described.
We've been here before.
On Sunday 01 April 2007 15:58, Eugene wrote:
> I want to setup an ACL which
>
> 1. Checks recipient emails address, for example - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 2. Checks if such entry exists in /etc/valiases/$domain (in the right
> part after ": ")
> 3. Blocks outgoing emails if the message is forwarded to
On Thursday 29 March 2007 00:24, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 02:44:43PM -0400, Bob Johnson wrote:
> [snip correct diagnosis of problem that is extensively discussed in the
> RFCs for SMTP]
>
> > I think the sending system should have a timeout longer than 60 seconds,
> >
Konstantin Kletschke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Mo 02 Apr 2007 10:22:17 CEST):
> Hi Folks!
>
> I am stuck with pimping my exim ACLs.
>
> exim is denying in "acl_check_connect:" connections whose reverse dns
> lookup fails:
>
> deny message = Warning - Reverse DNS lookup failed for host
> $sender_host
* on the Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 10:22:17AM +0200, Konstantin Kletschke wrote:
> I am stuck with pimping my exim ACLs.
>
> exim is denying in "acl_check_connect:" connections whose reverse dns
> lookup fails:
>
> deny message = Warning - Reverse DNS lookup failed for host
> $sender_host_address.
>
Hi Folks!
I am stuck with pimping my exim ACLs.
exim is denying in "acl_check_connect:" connections whose reverse dns
lookup fails:
deny message = Warning - Reverse DNS lookup failed for host
$sender_host_address.
!verify = reverse_host_lookup
!hosts = xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
The !hosts is a
Hi,
I have Exim install on my server, I have a few filters setup.
I have several domains on the same server.
What I want to be able to do is blind copy all emails SENT and RECEIVED
from [EMAIL PROTECTED] delivered to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Here is my filter that copies all incoming mail, (THIS WOR
48 matches
Mail list logo
