Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users:
> >Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users:
> >> out customer reported that they started migrating users to 365 services
> >> (yeah, after they started).
>
> [snip]
>
> >> I tried to use fallback_transport and/or fallback_transport_maps
> >> to ensure all mail with non-existing local users is forwarded to remote
> >> destination:
> >>
> >> t...@example.com relay:[example-com.mail.protection.outlook.com]
>
> >> May 29 18:46:09 mail postfix/local[2207]: 4b7XLn4zwqzKsZS:
> >> to=<t...@example.com>, relay=local, delay=0.16, delays=0.06/0.01/0/0.09,
> >> dsn=5.1.1, status=bounced (unknown user: "test")
>
> On 29.05.25 14:40, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> >fallback_transport_maps is searched with the local part not localpart@domain.
> >
> >However, fallback_transport_maps is not a good way to match unknown users.
> >allback_transport would be better.
>
> I wanted to test for single user first, and single domain later -
> there are two different domains in $mydestination and the client only
> configured addresses in one of them on 365.
The fallback_transport_MAPS are searched with the localpart,
but the fallback TRANSPORT gets the full recipient address.
Wietse
_______________________________________________
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
