On Mon, 03 Feb 2003, Phil Howard wrote: > Can you tell me if this is implemented by changing mailbox names adding > the domain name, or if it just simply keeps each domain in a separate > file tree much as one might do by having run each domain with a separate > daemon instance listing to specific interface addresses?
You just need to use the list archive to find that out. > One way "virtual domain" has been used is when an MTA (traditionally > sendmail) would accept any of several different domain names, but each > would be delivered as if the RHS was the same as the local machine. Sendmail retarded overloading of the term... Use postfix, exim, or something like that that has a real concept of "virtual domains" as separate namespaces. > of the term "virtual domain". It is one I wish would be banished from > any use. Cyrus virtual domains are exactly that: namespace-separated "virtual". > the full user@domain which is logged in, then I would say there is nothing > "virtual" about the domain at all. It is in fact very real. What might I suppose. Still, it is not [exactly] the domain of the host, so it was called virtual. The term is in wide usage, now. It is quite late to try to change it to something more sensible such as "multiple separate domains". -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh