> Am 28.11.2014 um 19:39 schrieb "li...@rhsoft.net" <li...@rhsoft.net>: > > > > Am 28.11.2014 um 19:31 schrieb Christen Rößner: >>> Am 28.11.2014 um 19:26 schrieb Christen Rößner >>> <c...@roessner-network-solutions.com>: >>> >>> Recipient address lookup for i...@neue-arbeitslos-vb.de would result in a >>> MX result of mx.deltaweb.de. And now I look for a way to say: do not send >>> to mx.deltaweb.de:25, but consult a lookup table for this MX, which could >>> give me another port. Or even another MTA. >> >> The example is buggy, as my typing auto correction broke the example email. >> But you still can get the idea. > > i get what you want to achieve > > *but* wouldn't be the way to go to have a sender-dependent relayhost on that > MX instead try to hack the lookups? if you don't control the MX or not can > work together with the admin on the other side it's questionable at all
You are right and on the other side, I do control both servers. It's a postmulti setup. So two instances on the same host. A dirty hack would be DNATing with iptables, but I really would prefer clean routing. And as I do not have full control over the www server, running Postfix, I can not influence users behavior. It's a hosting server with hundreds of users. So controlling based on MX next hop overwrite could be much easier and cleaner. > the 4 options below on "mx.deltaweb.de" would achive that inclduing port and > athentication > > if you want to bypass the MX use [hostname] > > * sender_dependent_relayhost_maps > * smtp_sasl_password_maps > * smtp_sasl_auth_enable > * smtp_sender_dependent_authentication I will look at these, even I think a solution might be difficult, if it is sender based. Christian
