Fabio Sangiovanni:
> Hi all,
> 
> from the docs of sender_dependent_default_transport_maps:
> "Note: this overrides default_transport, not transport_maps, and 
> therefore the expected syntax is that of default_transport, not the 
> syntax of transport_maps. Specifically, this does not support the 
> transport_maps syntax for null transport, null nexthop, or null email 
> addresses."
> 
> And from the docs of default_transport:
> "The :nexthop destination is optional; its syntax is documented in the 
> manual page of the corresponding delivery agent."
> 
> Is someone willing to clarify this a little? My question raises from the 
> fact that I used this configuration, and it worked:
> 
> main.cf:
>      sender_dependent_default_transport_maps = 
> hash:/etc/postfix/sdd_transport_maps
> 
> # not-null transport, null nexthop
> /etc/postfix/sdd_transport_maps:
>      mysen...@domain.tld    mytransport:

You need to specify a nexthop destination only if you want to
override the default. The default nexthop destination is the domain
portion of the recipient address.

> /etc/postfix/master.cf:
>      mytransport      unix  -       -       n       -       - smtp
>              -o smtp_generic_maps=hash:/etc/postfix/generic
> 
> What am I missing here?

It works but does not to match yesterday's requirements:

    I need to rewrite the address of some particular recipients,
    but just for messages with envelope sender different from the
    null sender. In other terms, I need to redirect messages for
    some recipients in a list (towards other, remote, addresses),
    but only if the envelope sender is not <>. In other terms, I
    need to redirect messages for some recipients in a list (towards
    other, remote, addresses), but only if the envelope sender is
    not <>. If the envelope sender is <>, I need messages to follow
    the standard route towards the internal host, even for the
    recipients on the list.

Before I proceed to write down a configuration that you don't need,
perhaps you can explain the *problem* that you are trying to solve,
instead of your solution to route <> envelopes differently.

        Wietse

Reply via email to