Hi everyone,
I'm hoping to get some routing done based on the Headers.
Basicaly if there's a match in the headers I want to route it to a
specific machine.

I can get the header match working but it seems sendmail simply won't
do the routing.


KRegsmime_p7m regex -a@MATCH smime.p7m
HContent-Disposition: $>Encrypted_Header


SEncrypted_Header
R$* $: $( Regsmime_p7m $&{currHeader} $)
R@MATCH $# esmtp $@ [ 127.0.0.1 ] $: $&{CurrentAdd}

Sendmail seems to just simply ignore the last line.

Is this possible? am i really barking up the wrong tree?

Mike Luich

In article <1157731291.706256.204550@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups .com>
"mluich" <mluich@gmail.com> writes:
> I'm hoping to get some routing done based on the Headers.
>Basicaly if there's a match in the headers I want to route it to a
>specific machine.
>
>I can get the header match working but it seems sendmail simply won't
>do the routing.

Correct, header rulesets can only result in reject or discard actions -
the routing decisions have already been made when sendmail receives the
headers.

>Is this possible? am i really barking up the wrong tree?

It has been discussed a number of times in the past here, the
cleanest/simplest solution is probably to use a flexible milter like
MIMEDefang (add/remove recipients based on header contents).

--Per Hedeland
per@hedeland.org

per@hedeland.org (Per Hedeland) writes:

> In article <1157731291.706256.204550@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups .com>
> "mluich" <mluich@gmail.com> writes:
>> I'm hoping to get some routing done based on the Headers.
>>Basicaly if there's a match in the headers I want to route it to a
>>specific machine.
>>
>>I can get the header match working but it seems sendmail simply won't
>>do the routing.
>
> Correct, header rulesets can only result in reject or discard actions -
> the routing decisions have already been made when sendmail receives the
> headers.

AFAIR previous discussions it seemed to be possible to achieve in
sendmail.cf with resignation of "at once" delivery attempts.
* header rules set macro
* the macro is used for routing decisions during *next* queue run

>>Is this possible? am i really barking up the wrong tree?
>
> It has been discussed a number of times in the past here, the
> cleanest/simplest solution is probably to use a flexible milter like
> MIMEDefang (add/remove recipients based on header contents).

I do agree with cleanest/simplest part.

--
[pl2en: Andrew] Andrzej Adam Filip : anfi@priv.onet.pl : anfi@xl.wp.pl

glad to hear it, That's the road i've been heading down.

I have a milter which simply checks the headers for my field, and
finding a match appends a .route to the rcpt address.

I.E. someone@somwhere.com -> someone@somwhere.com.route

then in mailertable I put an entry:

..route esmtp[somewherespecific.com]

And I remove the .route at the other end.

Thanks everyone.
Michael Luich
Andrzej Adam Filip wrote:
> per@hedeland.org (Per Hedeland) writes:
>
> > In article <1157731291.706256.204550@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups .com>
> > "mluich" <mluich@gmail.com> writes:
> >> I'm hoping to get some routing done based on the Headers.
> >>Basicaly if there's a match in the headers I want to route it to a
> >>specific machine.
> >>
> >>I can get the header match working but it seems sendmail simply won't
> >>do the routing.
> >
> > Correct, header rulesets can only result in reject or discard actions -
> > the routing decisions have already been made when sendmail receives the
> > headers.
>
> AFAIR previous discussions it seemed to be possible to achieve in
> sendmail.cf with resignation of "at once" delivery attempts.
> * header rules set macro
> * the macro is used for routing decisions during *next* queue run
>
> >>Is this possible? am i really barking up the wrong tree?
> >
> > It has been discussed a number of times in the past here, the
> > cleanest/simplest solution is probably to use a flexible milter like
> > MIMEDefang (add/remove recipients based on header contents).
>
> I do agree with cleanest/simplest part.
>
> --
> [pl2en: Andrew] Andrzej Adam Filip : anfi@priv.onet.pl : anfi@xl.wp.pl

Andrzej Adam Filip wrote:
> per@hedeland.org (Per Hedeland) writes:
> > Correct, header rulesets can only result in reject or discard actions -
> > the routing decisions have already been made when sendmail receives the
> > headers.
>
> AFAIR previous discussions it seemed to be possible to achieve in
> sendmail.cf with resignation of "at once" delivery attempts.
> * header rules set macro
> * the macro is used for routing decisions during *next* queue run

How do I achieve "resignation of at once delivery attempts"?
I can't find such an option in op.me.

--
Sakagami Hiroki

"Sakagami Hiroki" <sakagami@gmail.com> writes:

> Andrzej Adam Filip wrote:
>> per@hedeland.org (Per Hedeland) writes:
>> > Correct, header rulesets can only result in reject or discard actions -
>> > the routing decisions have already been made when sendmail receives the
>> > headers.
>>
>> AFAIR previous discussions it seemed to be possible to achieve in
>> sendmail.cf with resignation of "at once" delivery attempts.
>> * header rules set macro
>> * the macro is used for routing decisions during *next* queue run
>
> How do I achieve "resignation of at once delivery attempts"?
> I can't find such an option in op.me.

I requires changing DeliveryMode from default "background" to "queue".

It may be achieved by passing "-odq" command line option to started
sendmail daemon.

--
[pl2en: Andrew] Andrzej Adam Filip : anfi@priv.onet.pl : anfi@xl.wp.pl