Re: [exim] Spambox cfg for remote delivery?

2017-10-18 Thread Phil Pennock
On 2017-10-18 at 08:36 +, Jaap Winius wrote: > Some time ago I devised a spambox configuration for Exim so that messages > that are flagged by only one or two types of filters will end up in a user's > spambox. The transport looks like this: > > spambox: [...] Last time I ran ISP mail-systems

Re: [exim] Spambox cfg for remote delivery?

2017-10-18 Thread Heiko Schlittermann via Exim-users
Jaap Winius (Mi 18 Okt 2017 18:36:36 CEST): > > Quoting Jeremy Harris : > > Presumably you didn't put one in then > How so? "must not be defined" seems clear enough to me. > > No, you need to give it a transport that does the required job. > Really? None of the other standard Exim routers tha

Re: [exim] Spambox cfg for remote delivery?

2017-10-18 Thread Jaap Winius
Quoting Heiko Schlittermann via Exim-users : Uhmm… My fault. A redirect router does not use a transport, it just generates a new address. No problem; I figured as much. The + is there for no reason (Didn't you use it in your example?) You can create whatever address you like in the data opt

Re: [exim] Spambox cfg for remote delivery?

2017-10-18 Thread Heiko Schlittermann via Exim-users
Jaap Winius (Mi 18 Okt 2017 17:14:53 CEST): > > Quoting Heiko Schlittermann via Exim-users : > > > spambox: > > driver = redirect > > domains = +local_domains > > check_local_user > > local_parts = ! root > > condition = ${if eq{$acl_m_spam}{match}} > > data = $local_part

Re: [exim] Spambox cfg for remote delivery?

2017-10-18 Thread Jaap Winius
Quoting Jeremy Harris : That doesn't work. Exim won't start, stating:   spambox router:   a transport must not be defined for this router Presumably you didn't put one in then How so? "must not be defined" seems clear enough to me. So, would the solution here be to simply omit the "t

Re: [exim] Spambox cfg for remote delivery?

2017-10-18 Thread Jeremy Harris
On 18/10/17 16:14, Jaap Winius wrote: > > Quoting Heiko Schlittermann via Exim-users : > >> spambox: >>     driver = redirect >>     domains = +local_domains >>     check_local_user >>     local_parts = ! root >>     condition = ${if eq{$acl_m_spam}{match}} >>     data = $local_part+s...@spambox.

Re: [exim] Spambox cfg for remote delivery?

2017-10-18 Thread Jaap Winius
Quoting Heiko Schlittermann via Exim-users : spambox: driver = redirect domains = +local_domains check_local_user local_parts = ! root condition = ${if eq{$acl_m_spam}{match}} data = $local_part+s...@spambox.example.com transport = remote_smtp <-- some transport

Re: [exim] Spambox cfg for remote delivery?

2017-10-18 Thread Heiko Schlittermann via Exim-users
Jaap Winius (Mi 18 Okt 2017 11:52:41 CEST): … > Quoting Heiko Schlittermann via Exim-users : > > > > > > spambox: > > > debug_print = "T: appendfile for $local_part@$domain" > > > driver = appendfile > > … > > > mode = 0660 > > > mode_fail_narrower = false > > You need to modify the route

Re: [exim] Spambox cfg for remote delivery?

2017-10-18 Thread Jaap Winius
Quoting Heiko Schlittermann via Exim-users : Jaap Winius (Mi 18 Okt 2017 10:36:02 CEST): Hi folks, Some time ago I devised a spambox configuration for Exim so that messages that are flagged by only one or two types of filters will end up in a user's spambox. The transport looks like this: s

Re: [exim] Spambox cfg for remote delivery?

2017-10-18 Thread Heiko Schlittermann via Exim-users
Jaap Winius (Mi 18 Okt 2017 10:36:02 CEST): > > Hi folks, > > Some time ago I devised a spambox configuration for Exim so that messages > that are flagged by only one or two types of filters will end up in a user's > spambox. The transport looks like this: > > spambox: > debug_print = "T: app

[exim] Spambox cfg for remote delivery?

2017-10-18 Thread Jaap Winius
Hi folks, Some time ago I devised a spambox configuration for Exim so that messages that are flagged by only one or two types of filters will end up in a user's spambox. The transport looks like this: spambox: debug_print = "T: appendfile for $local_part@$domain" driver = appendfile