> From: Giles Lean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 05:49:39 +1000
>
> On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 14:18:26 -0500 "Chris Garrigues" wrote:
>
> > We can't very well expect programs that call /usr/lib/sendmail to
> > know what to do about a 111 return code, can we? Should that
> > progrma mask 111's into 0's?
>
> Possibly. The process of teaching the whole world about two different
> sets of mail return codes is painful.
>
> There is a catch though: the behaviour of calling "sendmail" from a
> .qmail file would change. Right now scripts that called "sendmail"
> from .forward and exited with its exit status can do the same thing
> under qmail and "just work".
I was about to say "Why would you want to call 'sendmail' from a .qmail file,
when you can call qmail-inject?" but I guess your reference to .forward explains
how it might come up. I'd rather that this be special cased in dot-forward
instead, however.
> Teaching the sendmail wrapper to use different exit codes depending on
> whether it is running from .qmail isn't a good idea.
>
> I suspect there isn't a "right" answer for all cases.
>
> I've not used dot-forward: how does it handle exit code 75 from
> commands that it runs?
>
> Regards,
>
> Giles
--
Chris Garrigues virCIO
+1 512 432 4046 4314 Avenue C O-
http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/ Austin, TX 78751-3709
+1 512 374 0500
My email address is an experiment in SPAM elimination. For an
explanation of what we're doing, see http://www.DeepEddy.Com/tms.html
Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft,
but they could get fired for relying on Microsoft.
