Mailing List Archive

http://www.exim.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=393





------- Additional Comments From holmgren@lysator.liu.se 2006-09-21 12:59 -------
The existing code related to errors_copy (at least moan_check_errorcopy())
should almost certainly be generalized instead. Perhaps a boolean option to
decide whether errors_copy should be applied to warning messages as well will
be sufficient, even? But passing errors_copy and warnings_copy, respectively,
to moan_check_errorcopy() should be as easy.



------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

--
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##

http://www.exim.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=393





------- Additional Comments From amal@krasn.ru 2006-09-21 14:57 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> The existing code related to errors_copy (at least moan_check_errorcopy())
> should almost certainly be generalized instead. Perhaps a boolean option to
> decide whether errors_copy should be applied to warning messages as well will
> be sufficient, even?

Yes, it looks more gracefull.
But there is one moment: bounce recipient is either $sender_address or address
from router's "errors_to" (deliver.c:6149). But warning recipient list has more
complex derivation, and this aspect is not enough clean for me. I've used
$sender_address for matching check in my patch, but is it correct in all
possible situations? May be we should try to match pattern with every addres
from warnmsg_recipients and join results by "or" or "and"?


> But passing errors_copy and warnings_copy, respectively,
> to moan_check_errorcopy() should be as easy.





------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

--
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##