On Fri, 1 Apr 2022 09:01:09 +0100 Jeremy Harris via Exim-users wrote:
> On 01/04/2022 06:12, Christian Balzer via Exim-users wrote:
> > Any suggestions
> Exim with debug mode, for more info.
>
As I wrote that was ALL of the pertinent out from a "-d -bv" session, a
"-d -bd" daemon and session res
On 01/04/2022 06:12, Christian Balzer via Exim-users wrote:
Any suggestions
Exim with debug mode, for more info.
--
Cheers,
Jeremy
--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wi
On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 23:10:44 +0900 Christian Balzer via Exim-users wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 13:00:13 +0100 Jeremy Harris via Exim-users wrote:
>
> > On 30/03/2022 08:44, Christian Balzer via Exim-users wrote:
> > > Can the not_smtp ACL be abused for that with a pipe transport or similar?
>
On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 13:00:13 +0100 Jeremy Harris via Exim-users wrote:
> On 30/03/2022 08:44, Christian Balzer via Exim-users wrote:
> > Can the not_smtp ACL be abused for that with a pipe transport or similar?
>
> Possibly, but rather unclean.
>
> Slightly less so would be using a ${acl (my
On 30/03/2022 08:44, Christian Balzer via Exim-users wrote:
Can the not_smtp ACL be abused for that with a pipe transport or similar?
Possibly, but rather unclean.
Slightly less so would be using a ${acl (my_scanner_acl}} from a suitable option
on the router, to call a custom (neither smtp or
Hello,
the spam/malware etc checks are available only within ACL context,
typically called in the smtp_data ACL.
And that's fine if you basically are going to scan every last mail, as one
can set result variables there and use those later when individual users
are routed/handled.
But consider
