[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       exim-users
Subject:    Re: [EXIM] local_part in an added header problem
From:       David Shaw <dshaw () jabberwocky ! com>
Date:       1998-05-29 22:40:13
[Download RAW message or body]

On Fri, May 22, 1998 at 07:11:52PM +0100, Philip Hazel wrote:

> I've looked around a bit further in the code. What I can make it do is to use 
> the same connection for each group of max_rcpt addresses, *provided that the
> copies of the message that are to be sent are identical*. The original cause of
> this thread was the failure of headers_add on a router when two addresses were
> for the same host. The work-round was to put headers_add on the transport and
> set max_rcpt to 1 so that each address caused a separate copy of the message to
> be sent.

I wouldn't want that - I like the behavior now where if there are more
than max_rcpt addresses, it can fork another delivery process off to
handle them. 

> I have in fact fixed the original problem, but with each recipient required to 
> receive different headers, it is still going to run the transport twice, and 
> each run will set up a new TCP/IP connection, either in parallel or serially, 
> dependent on the configuration (and maybe hand that connection over to another 
> Exim for another message). I don't like the idea of hanging on to one
> connection just in case another set of addresses could use it - at least not 
> given the current implementation, which is complicated by the parallelism. Now,
> if I'd written it differently from the start...
> 
> I am now not really convinced that it is worth trying to do anything.

What I was aiming at when I originally posted was a way to tag each
message on the way out so that if and when they bounced, I could easily
parse out the tag from the bounce message to see what address bounced.
Since most bounce messages are pretty much useless, this is the only way I
can think of to automatically process bounced mail.

qmail does something like this *called VERP) where it uses a different
envelope sender for each mailing.  I don't want to use qmail, but I need
that sort of functionality. 

What would happen if it was set to queue_smtp?  Wouldn't the queue runner
then cause the messages destined for the same system to go over the same
pipe?

Maybe I should just ask for a VERP mode directly.. how about it?

David

-- 
    David Shaw  |  dshaw@cs.jhu.edu  |  WWW http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~dshaw/
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   "There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX.
      We don't believe this to be a coincidence." - Jeremy S. Anderson

-- 
***  Exim information can be found at http://www.exim.org/  ***

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]