On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 03:49:55AM +0100, mouss wrote:
> Victor Duchovni a ?crit :
> > On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 03:31:52AM +0100, mouss wrote:
> >
> >> Victor Duchovni a ?crit :
> >>> [snip]
> >>> Why per-recipient transport lookups? Often better to rewrite to a domain
> >>> where the entire domain is handled by lmtp(8).
> >>>
> >> is there a benefit in avoiding per recipient transports?
> >
> > Simplicity, also reduces temptation to do LDAP or SQL transport lookups,
>
> unfortunately, this is exactly what I want to do: put everything in *sql
> to ease mgmt. of course, it is possible to dump the sql data, but I am
> talking about a web UI where I'd prefer the web app no have any
> privileges. I guess a cron (to dump data) is the best I can do if I
> don't want to write an "update" daemon?
There is nothing wrong with *SQL or LDAP for virtual alias lookups,
these happen in parallel in cleanup(8). This is why I encourage per-user
routing via rewriting (legacy Sendmail-style) with coarse routing via
fixed domain mappings in transport(5).
The (ideally small) transport should not use *SQL unless you can ensure
that lookup latency is very low under a wide range of conditions. Just
observe that each recipient address is subject to multiple transport
lookups (various truncated keys), and the queue manager needs to
resolve (via trivial-rewrite) each and every message recipient to
a transport:nexthop.
--
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:[email protected]?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users>
If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not
send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put
"It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.
