Pkg exim4 users - May 2012 - conf.d/router/200*: redundant no_more + non accurate comment?

Consider the no_more director in the default smarthost router:

    $ grep -A15 smarthost: /etc/exim4/conf.d/router/200_exim4-config_primary
    smarthost:
      debug_print = "R: smarthost for $local_part@$domain"
      driver = manualroute
      domains = ! +local_domains
      transport = remote_smtp_smarthost
      route_list = * DCsmarthost byname
      host_find_failed = defer
      same_domain_copy_routing = yes
      no_more

    .endif


    # The "no_more" above means that all later routers are for
    # domains in the local_domains list, i.e. just like Exim 3 directors.
    $


  I think the following quote applies here too.  Therefore, the no_more director
has no effect.  It is redundant.  Conseaquently, it may be generally like the
Exim 3 director, but here it does not have that significance.
  Does it warrants a bug report against exim4-config?


    $ zgrep -A34 ''* The manualroute router''
/usr/share/doc/exim4-base/spec.txt.gz

  * The manualroute router can be used to forward all external mail to a smart
    host. If you have set up, in the main part of the configuration, a named
    domain list that contains your local domains, for example:

    domainlist local_domains = my.domain.example

    You can arrange for all other domains to be routed to a smart host by
    making your first router something like this:

    smart_route:
      driver = manualroute
      domains = !+local_domains
      transport = remote_smtp
      route_list = * smarthost.ref.example

    This causes all non-local addresses to be sent to the single host
    smarthost.ref.example. If a colon-separated list of smart hosts is given,
    they are tried in order (but you can use hosts_randomize to vary the order
    each time). Another way of configuring the same thing is this:

    smart_route:
      driver = manualroute
      transport = remote_smtp
      route_list = !+local_domains  smarthost.ref.example

    There is no difference in behaviour between these two routers as they
    stand. However, they behave differently if no_more is added to them. In the
    first example, the router is skipped if the domain does not match the
    domains precondition; the following router is always tried. If the router
    runs, it always matches the domain and so can never decline. Therefore,
    no_more would have no effect. In the second case, the router is never
    skipped; it always runs. However, if it doesn''t match the domain,
it
    declines. In this case no_more would prevent subsequent routers from
    running.

    $

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 09:36:48AM -0700, Regid Ichira
wrote:
>   I think the following quote applies here too.  Therefore, the no_more
director
> has no effect.  It is redundant.  Conseaquently, it may be generally like
the
> Exim 3 director, but here it does not have that significance.
>   Does it warrants a bug report against exim4-config?
Upstream''s dnslookup router, which is smarthost''s counterpart
in a
non-smarthost situation, has set no_mode. I think that the Debian
package will not change what upstream feels is right.

I would therefore suggest that you take your issue upsteam; we are
probably going to adapt ourself once upstream has adopted your
suggestion.

Greetings
Marc

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber         | "I don''t trust Computers. They | Mailadresse
im Header
Mannheim, Germany  |  lose things."    Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 31958061
Nordisch by Nature |  How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 31958062

--- On Tue, 5/22/12, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 09:36:48AM -0700, Regid Ichira wrote:
> >???I think the following quote applies here too.? Therefore, the
no_more director
> > has no effect.? It is redundant.? Consequently, it may be generally
like the
> > Exim 3 director, but here it does not have that significance.
> >???Does it warrants a bug report against exim4-config?
> 
> Upstream''s dnslookup router, which is smarthost''s
counterpart in a
> non-smarthost situation, has set no_mode.  

  Are you referring to

    $ zgrep -A6 dnslookup: /usr/share/doc/exim4-base/examples/example.conf.gz
    dnslookup:
      driver = dnslookup
      domains = ! +local_domains
      transport = remote_smtp
      ignore_target_hosts = 0.0.0.0 : 127.0.0.0/8
      no_more

    $

?

> I think that the Debian package will not change what upstream feels is
right.
> 
> I would therefore suggest that you take your issue upsteam; we are
> probably going to adapt ourself once upstream has adopted your suggestion.
>

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 05:38:05PM -0700, Regid Ichira
wrote:
>   Are you referring to
> 
>     $ zgrep -A6 dnslookup:
/usr/share/doc/exim4-base/examples/example.conf.gz
>     dnslookup:
>       driver = dnslookup
>       domains = ! +local_domains
>       transport = remote_smtp
>       ignore_target_hosts = 0.0.0.0 : 127.0.0.0/8
>       no_more
> 
>     $
> 
> ?
Yes. We''re using a very similiar one.

Greetings
Marc

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber         | "I don''t trust Computers. They | Mailadresse
im Header
Mannheim, Germany  |  lose things."    Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 31958061
Nordisch by Nature |  How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 31958062

--- On Wed, 5/23/12, Marc Haber wrote:
> -0700, Regid Ichira wrote:
> >???Are you referring to
> > 
> >? ???$ zgrep -A6 dnslookup:
> /usr/share/doc/exim4-base/examples/example.conf.gz
> >? ???dnslookup:
> >? ? ???driver = dnslookup
> >? ? ???domains = ! +local_domains
> >? ? ???transport = remote_smtp
> >? ? ???ignore_target_hosts = 0.0.0.0 : 127.0.0.0/8
> >? ? ???no_more
> > 
> >? ???$
> > 
> > ?
> 
> Yes. We''re using a very similiar one.
> 

  I asked about nonlocal and dnslookup routers, that are mostly copied
from Debian''s routers, on
https://lists.exim.org/lurker/message/20120523.100347.59630bbc.en.html.
Phil Pennock answered.  I didn''t raise the exact same concerns that I
raised here, but the issues are close.  I suggest to continue this
thread on exim-users.  I don''t post this message on exim-users because
I think Phil answer is where the discusssion should continue.

  The points I had in mind before reading Phil''s answer are:

  I think the first thing to notice is that no_more should be considered only
when a router declines.  Now upstream''s dnslookup router can decline:

    $ zgrep -A5 ''by setting$''
/usr/share/doc/exim4-base/spec.txt.gz \
      | grep -C3 ignore_target_hosts
    --
    by setting

    ignore_target_hosts = 127.0.0.1

    on the relevant router.  If all the hosts found by a dnslookup router are
    discarded in this way, the router declines. In a conventional configuration,
an
    $

In contrast, debian''s dnslookup router can not decline.  It has no
ignore_target_hosts line.  Although the routers are different, I
think the discussion at

    $ zgrep -A34 ''* The manualroute router'' \
           /usr/share/doc/exim4-base/spec.txt.gz | tail -10

about the decline of a router actually applies to this message.
  I also think that debian''s nonlocal default router has the same
issue.

--- On Wed, 5/23/12, Regid Ichira wrote:
> https://lists.exim.org/lurker/message/20120523.100347.59630bbc.en.html.
  A minor fix for my previous message:

I get an error when clicking the URL when viewing the message in the list
archive.
I don''t know if that is the list software, or my browser.  The problem
is the
period at the end.  For an end of sentence.  To not have to send another
message,
the URL is: 

https://lists.exim.org/lurker/message/20120523.100347.59630bbc.en.html

Regid Ichira <regid23 at yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>  I think the first thing to notice is that no_more should be considered
only
> when a router declines.  Now upstream''s dnslookup router can
decline:
[...]
> In contrast, debian''s dnslookup router can not decline.  It has no
> ignore_target_hosts line.
[...]

You''ve lost me here, the router named dnslookup very much has as an
ignore_target_hosts line in Debian''s configuration.

dnslookup:
  debug_print = "R: dnslookup for $local_part@$domain"
  driver = dnslookup
  domains = ! +local_domains
  transport = remote_smtp
  same_domain_copy_routing = yes
  # ignore private rfc1918 and APIPA addresses
  ignore_target_hosts = 0.0.0.0 : 127.0.0.0/8 : 192.168.0.0/16 :\
                        172.16.0.0/12 : 10.0.0.0/8 : 169.254.0.0/16 :\
                        255.255.255.255
  no_more

cu andreas

--- On Sun, 5/27/12, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Regid Ichira wrote:
> [...]
> >? I think the first thing to notice is that no_more
> should be considered only
> > when a router declines.? Now upstream''s dnslookup
> router can decline:
> [...]
> > In contrast, debian''s dnslookup router can not
> decline.? It has no
> > ignore_target_hosts line.
> [...]
> 
> You''ve lost me here, the router named dnslookup very much
> has as an
> ignore_target_hosts line in Debian''s configuration.
> 

1. My mistake: dnslookup_relay_to_domains, not dnslookup.
2. If I understood upstream reply, both dnslookup and dnslookup_relay_to_domains
   might decline.