Re: Consolidating Virtual Domain Delivery

2010-03-29 Thread Charles Marcus
On 2010-03-28 8:15 PM, Daniel L'Hommedieu wrote:
> And, I didn't mean to hijack the thread earlier - I meant to change
> the subject line - oops...

Changing the subject line of an existing thread to start a new thread is
*the definition* of hijacking a thread.

When you want to start a new thread, start a new message *from scratch*,
*not* by replying to an existing thread and changing the subject.

Threaded mail readers do *not* use the subject for displaying threads,
they use the appropriate mail *headers*.

-- 

Best regards,

Charles


Re: Consolidating Virtual Domain Delivery

2010-03-28 Thread Daniel L'Hommedieu
On Mar 28, 2010, at 19:28, Jerry wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 17:51:27 -0400, Daniel L'Hommedieu
>  articulated:
> 
>> After seeing this comment, I decided to see what versions of postfix
>> I have installed.  The RPM available for both CentOS 5 and RHEL5 is
>> "postfix-2.3.3-2.1.el5_2."  It's interesting that both of these Linux
>> versions offer a version of postfix that is so old...
>> 
>> Maybe I need to look into maintaining postfix manually...
> 
> Conversely, you might consider an OS that maintains a more up-to-date
> software repository.

Jerry,

This is an interesting proposition, but for the bulk of my work it is not 
feasible.  My employer is 100% Red Hat-based, so RHEL5 is my only option there. 
 For my personal server, I choose to run CentOS to be compatible with what we 
use at the office, but it's certainly an option to use something other than the 
same thing at work and home.

And, I didn't mean to hijack the thread earlier - I meant to change the subject 
line - oops...

Daniel

Re: Consolidating Virtual Domain Delivery

2010-03-28 Thread Jerry
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 17:51:27 -0400, Daniel L'Hommedieu
 articulated:

> After seeing this comment, I decided to see what versions of postfix
> I have installed.  The RPM available for both CentOS 5 and RHEL5 is
> "postfix-2.3.3-2.1.el5_2."  It's interesting that both of these Linux
> versions offer a version of postfix that is so old...
> 
> Maybe I need to look into maintaining postfix manually...

Conversely, you might consider an OS that maintains a more up-to-date
software repository.

-- 
Jerry
postfix.u...@yahoo.com

TO REPORT A PROBLEM see http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#mail
TO (UN)SUBSCRIBE see http://www.postfix.org/lists.html

If little green men land in your back yard, hide any little green women
you've got in the house.


Mike Harding, "The Armchair Anarchist's Almanac"


Fwd: Re: Consolidating Virtual Domain Delivery

2010-03-28 Thread fakessh


 Original Message 
Subject: Re: Consolidating Virtual Domain Delivery
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 00:14:43 +0200
From: fakessh 
To: "Roderick A. Anderson" 

On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 15:00:08 -0700, "Roderick A. Anderson"
 wrote:
> Daniel L'Hommedieu wrote:
>> On Mar 28, 2010, at 15:23, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>> BTW, Postfix 2.3 is no longer maintained. It is almost four years old.
>> 
>> Wietse,
>> 
>> After seeing this comment, I decided to see what versions of postfix I
>> have installed.  The RPM available for both CentOS 5 and RHEL5 is
>> "postfix-2.3.3-2.1.el5_2."  It's interesting that both of these Linux
>> versions offer a version of postfix that is so old...
>> 
>> Maybe I need to look into maintaining postfix manually...
> 
> Please see the thread starting on 23-Mar-2010 "Should I update Postfix?"

> which discusses this.
> 
> 
> \\||/
> Rod


there are specially built rpm for redhat

http://www.linuxmail.info/postfix-rpm-packages/
http://ftp.wl0.org/official/2.5/RPMS-rhel5-i386/
http://ftp.sanguine.net/pub/postfix/official/2.5/RPMS-rhel5-i386/

I use successfully
[r...@r13151 ~]# rpm -qa | grep postfix
postfix-2.5.1-1.mysql.sasl2.vda.rhel5

on my little machine in France


   fakessh


Re: Consolidating Virtual Domain Delivery

2010-03-28 Thread Roderick A. Anderson

Daniel L'Hommedieu wrote:

On Mar 28, 2010, at 15:23, Wietse Venema wrote:

BTW, Postfix 2.3 is no longer maintained. It is almost four years old.


Wietse,

After seeing this comment, I decided to see what versions of postfix I have installed.  
The RPM available for both CentOS 5 and RHEL5 is "postfix-2.3.3-2.1.el5_2."  
It's interesting that both of these Linux versions offer a version of postfix that is so 
old...

Maybe I need to look into maintaining postfix manually...


Please see the thread starting on 23-Mar-2010 "Should I update Postfix?" 
which discusses this.



\\||/
Rod
--


Daniel




Re: Consolidating Virtual Domain Delivery

2010-03-28 Thread Daniel L'Hommedieu
On Mar 28, 2010, at 15:23, Wietse Venema wrote:
> BTW, Postfix 2.3 is no longer maintained. It is almost four years old.

Wietse,

After seeing this comment, I decided to see what versions of postfix I have 
installed.  The RPM available for both CentOS 5 and RHEL5 is 
"postfix-2.3.3-2.1.el5_2."  It's interesting that both of these Linux versions 
offer a version of postfix that is so old...

Maybe I need to look into maintaining postfix manually...

Daniel

Re: Consolidating Virtual Domain Delivery

2010-03-28 Thread Wietse Venema
Frank Reid:
> Wietse Venema wrote:
> 
>  > To prove that POSTFIX is at fault you need to demonstrate that 
>  > ONE message with MULTIPLE recipients results in MULTIPLE deliveries.
> 
> I did some tests, and it appears it only happens when addressing the virtual
> domain.  POSTFIX does only one "RCPT TO" for normal (local or remote)
> domains, but for the virtual domain, it does a "RCPT TO" for each recipient
> under the virtual domain that's destined.  

According to Postfix 2.3, patch 10:

20070520

Bugfix (problem introduced Postfix 2.3): when DSN support
was introduced it broke "agressive" recipient duplicate
elimination with "enable_original_recipient = no".  File:
cleanup/cleanup_out_recipient.c.

So, you will need to upgrade.

BTW, Postfix 2.3 is no longer maintained. It is almost four years old.

Wietser


Re: Consolidating Virtual Domain Delivery

2010-03-28 Thread Wietse Venema
Frank Reid:
> Wietse Venema wrote:
> 
>  > To prove that POSTFIX is at fault you need to demonstrate that 
>  > ONE message with MULTIPLE recipients results in MULTIPLE deliveries.
> 
> I did some tests, and it appears it only happens when addressing the virtual
> domain.  POSTFIX does only one "RCPT TO" for normal (local or remote)
> domains, but for the virtual domain, it does a "RCPT TO" for each recipient
> under the virtual domain that's destined.  

You show output only.  That does not prove that POSTFIX expands
one recipient into multiple recipients.

Wietse


RE: Consolidating Virtual Domain Delivery

2010-03-28 Thread Frank Reid
Wietse Venema wrote:

 > To prove that POSTFIX is at fault you need to demonstrate that 
 > ONE message with MULTIPLE recipients results in MULTIPLE deliveries.

I did some tests, and it appears it only happens when addressing the virtual
domain.  POSTFIX does only one "RCPT TO" for normal (local or remote)
domains, but for the virtual domain, it does a "RCPT TO" for each recipient
under the virtual domain that's destined.  

Again, configuration for reference:

-- main.cf
virtual_alias_domains = example.com 
virtual_alias_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/virtual 

-- virtual 
@example.com mail...@mydomain.com

Below is the transcript from a remote mail server (MDaemon) that receives
"mail...@mydomain.com" mail.  Note that POSTFIX generated a new "RCPT TO"
for the same mailbox for each time a user was addressed in under the virtual
domain, e.g. 20 users under @example.com would equal 20 RCPT TO.

Sun 2010-03-28 14:48:54: <-- MAIL FROM:
SIZE=666
Sun 2010-03-28 14:48:54: --> 250 , Sender ok
Sun 2010-03-28 14:48:54: <-- RCPT TO:
Sun 2010-03-28 14:48:54: --> 250 , Recipient ok
Sun 2010-03-28 14:48:54: <-- RCPT TO:
Sun 2010-03-28 14:48:54: --> 250 , Recipient ok
Sun 2010-03-28 14:48:54: <-- DATA
Sun 2010-03-28 14:48:54: Creating temp file (SMTP):
c:\mdaemon\temp\md5001288.tmp
Sun 2010-03-28 14:48:54: --> 354 Enter mail, end with .
Sun 2010-03-28 14:48:54: Message size: 666 bytes
Sun 2010-03-28 14:48:54: Message creation successful:
c:\mdaemon\inbound\md5315611.msg
Sun 2010-03-28 14:48:54: --> 250 Ok, message saved 
Sun 2010-03-28 14:48:54: <-- QUIT

I'm certain it's something I'm doing wrong, but I appreciate any help
locating it.  Thanks.





Re: Consolidating Virtual Domain Delivery

2010-03-28 Thread Wietse Venema
Frank Reid:
> Wietse Venema wrote:
> 
>  > Yes it is possible. However, I need to warn you first about a
>  > mis-conception.
> 
>  > The To: header is NOT a reliable indicator of the intended recipient.
> 
> Understand.  I have no intention to sort out or deliver this mail by other
> means from the destination mailbox.  It's for a demonstration to show how
> discrete recipients would have been originally addressed from a remote
> system.  When the system is ready, I will remove the virtual_alias_maps and
> let it talk directly to the real destination.
> 
>  > To turn off the original recipient logic in virtual aliases, see 
>  > http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#enable_original_recipient
> 
> I have set "enable_original_recipient = no" in main.cf and confirmed with
> postconf -n.  Still, it does not control this behavior, and I receive a
> unique copy of the mail for each recipient originally addressed under the
> virtual_alias_domain.  I have tried to deliver to a non-Dovecot (remote)
> mailbox with the same results.
> 
> mail_version = 2.3.3

To prove that POSTFIX is at fault you need to demonstrate that
ONE message with MULTIPLE recipients results in MULTIPLE deliveries.

Wietse


RE: Consolidating Virtual Domain Delivery

2010-03-28 Thread Frank Reid
Wietse Venema wrote:

 > Yes it is possible. However, I need to warn you first about a
 > mis-conception.

 > The To: header is NOT a reliable indicator of the intended recipient.

Understand.  I have no intention to sort out or deliver this mail by other
means from the destination mailbox.  It's for a demonstration to show how
discrete recipients would have been originally addressed from a remote
system.  When the system is ready, I will remove the virtual_alias_maps and
let it talk directly to the real destination.

 > To turn off the original recipient logic in virtual aliases, see 
 > http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#enable_original_recipient

I have set "enable_original_recipient = no" in main.cf and confirmed with
postconf -n.  Still, it does not control this behavior, and I receive a
unique copy of the mail for each recipient originally addressed under the
virtual_alias_domain.  I have tried to deliver to a non-Dovecot (remote)
mailbox with the same results.

mail_version = 2.3.3

Any thoughts?





Re: Consolidating Virtual Domain Delivery

2010-03-28 Thread Wietse Venema
Frank Reid:
> Scenario:  I would like to deliver all mail for the @example.com domain to a
> single mailbox as a single delivery (to preserve header information).  I
> have set up:
> 
> -- main.cf
> virtual_alias_domains = example.com
> virtual_alias_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/virtual
> 
> -- virtual
> @example.com  mail...@mydomain.com
> 
> This works fine, and all @example.com mail goes to mail...@mydomain.com.
> (The mailbox is a Dovecot mailbox, if that matters.)
> 
> The problem is that I get a separate copy for every user under @example.com
> to the other mailbox.  For example, if the original mail is addressed to
> us...@example.com and us...@example.com, I will receive two copies in
> mail...@mydomain.com.  

By default, Postfix makes one delivery per original recipient.
Some organizations receive all their mail in a single mailbox, and
need to split out the mail after dowloading it with fetchmail etc.

(For this, the delivery agent meeds to be configured to prepend an
X-Original-To: header with the original recipient address. This is
the default with Postfix's built-in mailbox delivery agents, but
needs to be configured explicitly when using an external mailbox
delivery agent such as Dovecot.)

> Is it possible to consolidate into a single delivery using this method?
> I've looked at address rewrite, but I would like to keep the original header
> intact showing the intended recipients, if that's possible.

Yes it is possible. However, I need to warn you first about a
mis-conception.

The To: header is NOT a reliable indicator of the intended recipient.

For example, this message is sent To: postfix-users@postfix.org,
yet it arrives in your mailbox. It would be a mistake to make mail
delivery decisions based on the information in the To: header.

To turn off the original recipient logic in virtual aliases, see
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#enable_original_recipient

Wietse


Consolidating Virtual Domain Delivery

2010-03-28 Thread Frank Reid
Scenario:  I would like to deliver all mail for the @example.com domain to a
single mailbox as a single delivery (to preserve header information).  I
have set up:

-- main.cf
virtual_alias_domains = example.com
virtual_alias_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/virtual

-- virtual
@example.com  mail...@mydomain.com

This works fine, and all @example.com mail goes to mail...@mydomain.com.
(The mailbox is a Dovecot mailbox, if that matters.)

The problem is that I get a separate copy for every user under @example.com
to the other mailbox.  For example, if the original mail is addressed to
us...@example.com and us...@example.com, I will receive two copies in
mail...@mydomain.com.  

Is it possible to consolidate into a single delivery using this method?
I've looked at address rewrite, but I would like to keep the original header
intact showing the intended recipients, if that's possible.