From: Victor Duchovni (no email)
Date: Wed Jun 01 2005 - 09:19:26 EDT
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 12:47:35PM +0100, Matt Fretwell wrote:
> Victor Duchovni wrote:
>
> > > > Not necessary for a mailbox in a virtual_alias_domain. The OP's
> > > > most recent approach is correct, and the advice above is not.
>
> > The basic requirement is that every mailbox in a virtual alias domain
> > needs to be (ultimately) rewritten to a mailbox in a real domain. It is
> > not possible to create transport(5) table entries directly for virtual
> > alias mailboxes. No access table entries are requried to accept these,
> > because all the listed recipients are automatically accepted.
>
>
> If the recipient is *not* listed in virtual_*_maps, but the recipient
> domain is a valid domain, virtual or otherwise, the method with access and
> transport should also work, should it not? Or have I missed another quirk
> of virtual_*?
>
The OP had a virtual alias domain. While one can implement recipient
validation for relay domains via access(5) tables, and indeed this is
sometimes necessary because access(5) handles domain hierarchies more
flexibly than relay_recipient_maps, there is no need to replace virtual
alias domains with anything more complex. They just work. As I said, for
virtual alias mailboxes the transport table is ignored, they *must* be
rewritten.
-- Viktor. Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header. To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below: <mailto:?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users>
|
|
|