On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 10:28:26PM -0700, Andy Bradford wrote:
> Thus said Ricardo Cerqueira on Sun, 07 Jan 2001 01:50:16 GMT:
> > Hmmm... OK, disregard my previous mail.
> > Personally, I'd rather have one file for SMTP, and another for QMTP. Does
> > anyone else here agree with me?
I'd really like to discuss this further... Could you please elaborate on
> This seems more logical to me as it allows finer control over the
> entire system. Oh well, I suppose it isn't critical as qmail-remote
> will just have to determine which to use by probing I guess---unless of
> course it is accompanied by a port number on which QMTP runs.
The format I propose for control/mailroutes is the following:
--- snip ---
Two example lines looks like this:
almqvist.net:beta.lunds.lu.se:209:qmtp
propellerheads.org:mail-relay.df.lth.se
In the first case, QMTP will be used to transfer messages for
the almqvist.net domain to beta.lunds.lu.se, port 209.
In the second case, SMTP will be used to transfer messages for
the propellerheads.org domain to mail-relay.df.lth.se, port 25.
PLEASE NOTE that SMTP will be assumed as protocol even if you
specify 209 as the port, but no protocol. In fact, SMTP will be
used in all cases except if the last field is exactly 'qmtp'.
PLEASE NOTE that you cannot specify only a protocol. If you wish
to specify a protocol, you MUST specify a port. Bad things may
happen.
--- snap ---
If there were two files, I'd basically have to "merge" them internally
anyway... Or one file would have to have precedence over the other - but
what happens if I specify a wildcard in one file but one of that
domain's subdomains in the other?
-Johan
--
Johan Almqvist
