--- Comment #22 from Axel Rau <axel.rau@???> 2012-07-08 12:22:42 ---
Am 08.07.2012 um 01:27 schrieb Jeremy Harris:
> See also bug 301. 301 is a subset of 1031 and could be closed, because 301 talks about the 'event
of delivery or failure', while 1031 specifies the data to be collected on such
Regarding your questions here
https://lists.exim.org/lurker/message/20120606.143659.031e8e6b.en.html > - How should information be fed to the ACL?
> - What information?
Current users of my patch need the following information:
dbl_delivery_ip IP of host, which has accepted delivery
dbl_delivery_port Port of remote host which has accepted delivery
dbl_delivery_fqdn FQDN of host, which has accepted delivery
dbl_delivery_local_part local part of address being delivered
dbl_delivery_domain domain part of address being delivered
dbl_delivery_confirmation SMTP confirmation message
In case of a deferral caused by a host-error:
dbl_defer_errno Error number
dbl_defer_errstr Error string possibly containing more details
I tried to be minimally invasive and collected it from the smtp transport.
I guess 90% of future users of this feature will rely on the smtp related
data. Does a abstract/clean design justify feeding this information to
router name space?
I vote for a more practical approach.
PGP-Key:29E99DD6 ☀ +49 151 2300 9283 ☀ computing @ chaos claudius