Re: Processing order of canonical maps
As a new administrator of postfix I am not able to determine which of the two orders is correct from the existing documentation. An additional sentence would be very helpful. Perhaps, under canonical(5) section "TABLE SEARCH ORDER": "Each pattern is looked for across the entire set of tables in the map before moving on to the next pattern" Regards, Todd > On Fr, 2016-09-16, at 08:33, Ondřej Lysoněk <olyso...@redhat.com> wrote: > > It just doesn't seem very clear to me. And one of our customers even got the > wrong impression about the search order. I think a sentence like the > following could be dropped in there somewhere: "First, a match of > 'user@domain' is searched for across all the listed tables in the order the > tables are listed. If no match is found, a match of 'user' is searched for in > all the listed tables, and so on". Or something less horrible. > > Ondra > > On 09/16/2016 12:51 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: >> canonical(5) section "TABLE SEARCH ORDER": >> >>"With lookups from indexed files such as DB or DBM, or from >>networked tables such as NIS, LDAP or SQL, patterns are tried >>in the order as listed below:" >> >> That really does what it says: try the first query. Try the second >> query. And so on. >> >> postconf(5) section "canonical_maps": >> >>"Tables will be searched in the specified order until a match >> is found. Note: these lookups are recursive." >> >> That really works as described. For each query, search the first >> table. Try the second table. And so on. >> >> The information is in two places, but it is not ambiguous. >> >> Are you proposing to mix these descriptions? >> >> Wietse >> >> Ond?ej Lyson?k: >> [ Charset windows-1252 converted... ] >>> Thank you! >>> >>> The documentation seems a bit ambiguous on this topic. After reading >>> canonical(5) and the canonical_maps section of postconf(5), I think it's >>> not clear which of the processing orders, mentioned in the first email, >>> it actually uses. Would you like me to write a patch for this? >>> >>> Ondra >>> >>> >>> On 09/15/2016 03:46 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: >>>> Ond?ej Lyson?k: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I need some help configuring canonical maps. >>>>> >>>>> Suppose you have two lookup tables listed in canonical_maps and each of >>>>> these tables uses all three pattern types (user@domain, user, @domain). >>>>> Now from what I see Postfix looks for a match when rewriting addresses >>>>> in the following order: >>>>> >>>>> Look for a match of: >>>>> - user@domain in the first table >>>>> - user@domain in the second table >>>>> - user in the first table >>>>> - user in the second table >>>>> - @domain in the first table >>>>> - @domain in the second table >>>>> >>>>> Is there a way to make Postfix do the lookup in the following order >>>>> instead? >>>>> >>>>> Look for a match of: >>>>> - user@domain in the first table >>>>> - user in the first table >>>>> - @domain in the first table >>>>> - user@domain in the second table >>>>> - user in the second table >>>>> - @domain in the second table >>>> >>>> That is not implemented. The code that generates partial queries >>>> is separate from the code that searches lookup tables (the same >>>> comes up with partial access(5) queries, or even header/body checks. >>>> Asking for this to be changed will not automatically make it happen. >>>> >>>> In the case of LDAP/SQL queries, you can enable the domain filter >>>> to avoid the domain-less queries. >>>> >>>>Wietse >>>> >>>
Re: Processing order of canonical maps
It just doesn't seem very clear to me. And one of our customers even got the wrong impression about the search order. I think a sentence like the following could be dropped in there somewhere: "First, a match of 'user@domain' is searched for across all the listed tables in the order the tables are listed. If no match is found, a match of 'user' is searched for in all the listed tables, and so on". Or something less horrible. Ondra On 09/16/2016 12:51 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: canonical(5) section "TABLE SEARCH ORDER": "With lookups from indexed files such as DB or DBM, or from networked tables such as NIS, LDAP or SQL, patterns are tried in the order as listed below:" That really does what it says: try the first query. Try the second query. And so on. postconf(5) section "canonical_maps": "Tables will be searched in the specified order until a match is found. Note: these lookups are recursive." That really works as described. For each query, search the first table. Try the second table. And so on. The information is in two places, but it is not ambiguous. Are you proposing to mix these descriptions? Wietse Ond?ej Lyson?k: [ Charset windows-1252 converted... ] Thank you! The documentation seems a bit ambiguous on this topic. After reading canonical(5) and the canonical_maps section of postconf(5), I think it's not clear which of the processing orders, mentioned in the first email, it actually uses. Would you like me to write a patch for this? Ondra On 09/15/2016 03:46 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: Ond?ej Lyson?k: Hi, I need some help configuring canonical maps. Suppose you have two lookup tables listed in canonical_maps and each of these tables uses all three pattern types (user@domain, user, @domain). Now from what I see Postfix looks for a match when rewriting addresses in the following order: Look for a match of: - user@domain in the first table - user@domain in the second table - user in the first table - user in the second table - @domain in the first table - @domain in the second table Is there a way to make Postfix do the lookup in the following order instead? Look for a match of: - user@domain in the first table - user in the first table - @domain in the first table - user@domain in the second table - user in the second table - @domain in the second table That is not implemented. The code that generates partial queries is separate from the code that searches lookup tables (the same comes up with partial access(5) queries, or even header/body checks. Asking for this to be changed will not automatically make it happen. In the case of LDAP/SQL queries, you can enable the domain filter to avoid the domain-less queries. Wietse
Re: Processing order of canonical maps
canonical(5) section "TABLE SEARCH ORDER": "With lookups from indexed files such as DB or DBM, or from networked tables such as NIS, LDAP or SQL, patterns are tried in the order as listed below:" That really does what it says: try the first query. Try the second query. And so on. postconf(5) section "canonical_maps": "Tables will be searched in the specified order until a match is found. Note: these lookups are recursive." That really works as described. For each query, search the first table. Try the second table. And so on. The information is in two places, but it is not ambiguous. Are you proposing to mix these descriptions? Wietse Ond?ej Lyson?k: [ Charset windows-1252 converted... ] > Thank you! > > The documentation seems a bit ambiguous on this topic. After reading > canonical(5) and the canonical_maps section of postconf(5), I think it's > not clear which of the processing orders, mentioned in the first email, > it actually uses. Would you like me to write a patch for this? > > Ondra > > > On 09/15/2016 03:46 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: > > Ond?ej Lyson?k: > >> Hi, > >> > >> I need some help configuring canonical maps. > >> > >> Suppose you have two lookup tables listed in canonical_maps and each of > >> these tables uses all three pattern types (user@domain, user, @domain). > >> Now from what I see Postfix looks for a match when rewriting addresses > >> in the following order: > >> > >> Look for a match of: > >>- user@domain in the first table > >>- user@domain in the second table > >>- user in the first table > >>- user in the second table > >>- @domain in the first table > >>- @domain in the second table > >> > >> Is there a way to make Postfix do the lookup in the following order > >> instead? > >> > >> Look for a match of: > >>- user@domain in the first table > >>- user in the first table > >>- @domain in the first table > >>- user@domain in the second table > >>- user in the second table > >>- @domain in the second table > > > > That is not implemented. The code that generates partial queries > > is separate from the code that searches lookup tables (the same > > comes up with partial access(5) queries, or even header/body checks. > > Asking for this to be changed will not automatically make it happen. > > > > In the case of LDAP/SQL queries, you can enable the domain filter > > to avoid the domain-less queries. > > > > Wietse > > >
Re: Processing order of canonical maps
Thank you! The documentation seems a bit ambiguous on this topic. After reading canonical(5) and the canonical_maps section of postconf(5), I think it's not clear which of the processing orders, mentioned in the first email, it actually uses. Would you like me to write a patch for this? Ondra On 09/15/2016 03:46 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: Ond?ej Lyson?k: Hi, I need some help configuring canonical maps. Suppose you have two lookup tables listed in canonical_maps and each of these tables uses all three pattern types (user@domain, user, @domain). Now from what I see Postfix looks for a match when rewriting addresses in the following order: Look for a match of: - user@domain in the first table - user@domain in the second table - user in the first table - user in the second table - @domain in the first table - @domain in the second table Is there a way to make Postfix do the lookup in the following order instead? Look for a match of: - user@domain in the first table - user in the first table - @domain in the first table - user@domain in the second table - user in the second table - @domain in the second table That is not implemented. The code that generates partial queries is separate from the code that searches lookup tables (the same comes up with partial access(5) queries, or even header/body checks. Asking for this to be changed will not automatically make it happen. In the case of LDAP/SQL queries, you can enable the domain filter to avoid the domain-less queries. Wietse
Re: Processing order of canonical maps
Ond?ej Lyson?k: > Hi, > > I need some help configuring canonical maps. > > Suppose you have two lookup tables listed in canonical_maps and each of > these tables uses all three pattern types (user@domain, user, @domain). > Now from what I see Postfix looks for a match when rewriting addresses > in the following order: > > Look for a match of: >- user@domain in the first table >- user@domain in the second table >- user in the first table >- user in the second table >- @domain in the first table >- @domain in the second table > > Is there a way to make Postfix do the lookup in the following order instead? > > Look for a match of: >- user@domain in the first table >- user in the first table >- @domain in the first table >- user@domain in the second table >- user in the second table >- @domain in the second table That is not implemented. The code that generates partial queries is separate from the code that searches lookup tables (the same comes up with partial access(5) queries, or even header/body checks. Asking for this to be changed will not automatically make it happen. In the case of LDAP/SQL queries, you can enable the domain filter to avoid the domain-less queries. Wietse
Processing order of canonical maps
Hi, I need some help configuring canonical maps. Suppose you have two lookup tables listed in canonical_maps and each of these tables uses all three pattern types (user@domain, user, @domain). Now from what I see Postfix looks for a match when rewriting addresses in the following order: Look for a match of: - user@domain in the first table - user@domain in the second table - user in the first table - user in the second table - @domain in the first table - @domain in the second table Is there a way to make Postfix do the lookup in the following order instead? Look for a match of: - user@domain in the first table - user in the first table - @domain in the first table - user@domain in the second table - user in the second table - @domain in the second table Thanks. Ondra
Re: rewriting from and reply-to headers: milter vs canonical maps/header checks
Venkat: What I am trying to do is: Setup a SMTP relay for outgoing mail where: (a) All From: headers of the form u...@cooldomain1.com (example) are rewritten to be no-re...@cooldomain2.com (b) A Reply-To: header with the original u...@cooldomain1.com is added I have achieved this by using this combination: -- using sender_canonical_maps set to: @cooldomain1.com no-re...@cooldomain2.com -- using header_checks set to: /^From: (.*@cooldomain1\.com)/ PREPEND Reply-To:$1 This seems to work. However, I am not sure if this is a good approach or would using a milter (FILTER action in header_checks) be a better way? If so, is there a pre-existing milter available for this that is recommended? Thanks all. Your configuration should be safe, if I read Postfix documentation carefully. Remember, undocumented Postfix behavior is not covered by any promise of future compatibility. The header_checks manpage promises that PREPENDed text is not subject to header_checks or address rewriting, and that it does not affect the way that Postfix adds missing message headers. So this part of your design is safe. Does Postfix documentation promise that header_checks happen before address rewriting? It makes that promise in a non-obvious manner. The text for the REPLACE action says that the replacement text will be subject to address rewriting (among other things). This suggests that header_checks happen before address rewriting. So there is an implicit promise that header_checks happen before address rewriting. This order should probably be documented, along with the relative timing of Milter activity. Wietse
Re: rewriting from and reply-to headers: milter vs canonical maps/header checks
Thank you very much for the detailed explanation Wietse, it makes more sense to me now re: the order of operations. Cheers, VM On Aug 21, 2014 5:31 AM, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote: Venkat: What I am trying to do is: Setup a SMTP relay for outgoing mail where: (a) All From: headers of the form u...@cooldomain1.com (example) are rewritten to be no-re...@cooldomain2.com (b) A Reply-To: header with the original u...@cooldomain1.com is added I have achieved this by using this combination: -- using sender_canonical_maps set to: @cooldomain1.com no-re...@cooldomain2.com -- using header_checks set to: /^From: (.*@cooldomain1\.com)/ PREPEND Reply-To:$1 This seems to work. However, I am not sure if this is a good approach or would using a milter (FILTER action in header_checks) be a better way? If so, is there a pre-existing milter available for this that is recommended? Thanks all. Your configuration should be safe, if I read Postfix documentation carefully. Remember, undocumented Postfix behavior is not covered by any promise of future compatibility. The header_checks manpage promises that PREPENDed text is not subject to header_checks or address rewriting, and that it does not affect the way that Postfix adds missing message headers. So this part of your design is safe. Does Postfix documentation promise that header_checks happen before address rewriting? It makes that promise in a non-obvious manner. The text for the REPLACE action says that the replacement text will be subject to address rewriting (among other things). This suggests that header_checks happen before address rewriting. So there is an implicit promise that header_checks happen before address rewriting. This order should probably be documented, along with the relative timing of Milter activity. Wietse
rewriting from and reply-to headers: milter vs canonical maps/header checks
Hi all, Apologies in advance if this is a redundant query. I did some searching on the previous list posts and wasn't able to find a definitive recommendation on this. What I am trying to do is: Setup a SMTP relay for outgoing mail where: (a) All From: headers of the form u...@cooldomain1.com (example) are rewritten to be no-re...@cooldomain2.com (b) A Reply-To: header with the original u...@cooldomain1.com is added I have achieved this by using this combination: -- using sender_canonical_maps set to: @cooldomain1.com no-re...@cooldomain2.com -- using header_checks set to: /^From: (.*@cooldomain1\.com)/ PREPEND Reply-To:$1 This seems to work. However, I am not sure if this is a good approach or would using a milter (FILTER action in header_checks) be a better way? If so, is there a pre-existing milter available for this that is recommended? Thanks all. cheers, VM
Need help with canonical maps
I'm having difficulty getting the canonical_maps function to work as needed to repair some incorrect addresses from a legacy client. Here's the situation and what I've tried so far: Legacy client (oldhost.legacy.org) does not append its domain (legacy.org) to addresses in the envelope or the message when sending them via SMTP. So, if the user on oldhost types an address such as user@oldhost, it goes out with SMTP as user@oldhost instead of u...@oldhost.legacy.org. A machine with postfix (newhost.standard.org) has a different domain (standard.org) from the legacy machine. It acts as MX and relay for the oldhost.legacy.org domain. Relaying in both directions works fine. Only the address rewriting function which I'm trying to add is not working properly. When messages from the legacy client arrive at the postfix machine with addresses such as user@oldhost (missing .legacy.org), I'd like to rewrite those to read u...@oldhost.legacy.org. It's my understanding that the canonical_maps function is intended for this purpose. In /etc/postfix/canonical.pcre I have: /^(.*@oldhost)$/$1.legacy.org If I test with: postmap -q user@oldhost pcre:/etc/postfix/canonical.pcre the answer is: u...@oldhost.legacy.org. Perfect. In /etc/postfix/main.cf I have canonical_maps = pcre:/etc/postfix/canonical.pcre Then, on the legacy host, I send a message such as: To: user@someotherhost.domain Cc: user@oldhost The message arrives at the postfix machine, but the CC line is not rewritten. The documentation for canonical_maps says that in order for the headers to be rewritten, the client needs to either match the local_header_rewrite_clients or else the remote_header_rewrite_domain must be non-null. I tried both but neither produces the output that I need. Here's what I found: If I set local_header_rewrite_clients = static:all or permit_mynetworks or some other option that would cause a match of the legacy client, then the append_dot_domain option takes over and appends the domain of the postfix host, rewriting the address as u...@oldhost.standard.org. The canonical table is apparently ignored. If I instead leave local_header_rewrite_clients at its default (which does not match the legacy client) and turn on remote_header_rewrite_domain = invalid.domain, then the address is rewritten as user@oldhost.invalid.domain and, once again, the canonical table is apparently ignored. So the documentation for the canonical table is correct, in that rewriting only occurs if the local_header_rewrite_clients matches the client or if remote_header_rewrite_domain is set. And the rewrites are indeed occurring. But the rewriting that takes place completely ignores the canonical table. This seems like a catch-22 situation. I don't want to turn off append_dot_domain or append_at_myorigin because I need that for the local linux machine where postfix is running. If the canonical table rewrites were applied first, then the append_... functions would not apply. So how do I get postfix to apply the canonical table first (or at all)? Michael
Re: Need help with canonical maps
Michael Fox: If I set local_header_rewrite_clients = static:all or permit_mynetworks or some other option that would cause a match of the legacy client, then the append_dot_domain option takes over and appends the domain of the postfix host, rewriting the address as u...@oldhost.standard.org. The canonical table is apparently ignored. As documented in ADDRESS_REWRITING_README, canonical mapping happens after append_dot_mydomain. Thus, either turn off append_dot_mydomain (which may also change the handling of other email addresses, which may break something), or change canonical_maps to rewrite the address that results from append_dot_mydomain, i.e. u...@oldhost.standard.org Wietse
RE: Need help with canonical maps
Thanks much, Wietse. A couple of follow-ups: As documented in ADDRESS_REWRITING_README, canonical mapping happens after append_dot_mydomain. O.K. I read that document but did not see that statement. I just went back and read it again and I still don't see that. Perhaps the order of processing can be more explicitly stated? Thus, either turn off append_dot_mydomain (which may also change the handling of other email addresses, which may break something), or change canonical_maps to rewrite the address that results from append_dot_mydomain, i.e. u...@oldhost.standard.org I presume there is a reason for the current processing order. But it seems it causes the need to rewrite a rewrite. In other words, as you described, I either have to turn off a feature (append_dot_mydomain) and then fix the problem that that creates in canonical_maps, or else use canonical to rewrite an address that has already been rewritten. The reverse order seems more intuitive and useful (at least to me). If canonical was processed first, one would have the opportunity to fix the error as it is coming in, before it is further manipulated and, perhaps, becomes harder to distinguish from other addresses. Then, anything left over could be handled by append_dot_mydomain or the remote_header_rewrite_domain, wherever they apply. For backward compatibility, perhaps a switch could be provided to control the order. Just a thought. Once again, thanks for the quick reply. Michael
Re: Need help with canonical maps
Michael Fox: Thanks much, Wietse. A couple of follow-ups: As documented in ADDRESS_REWRITING_README, canonical mapping happens after append_dot_mydomain. O.K. I read that document but did not see that statement. I just went back and read it again and I still don't see that. Perhaps the order of processing can be more explicitly stated? Hmm. ADDRESS_REWRITING_README describes the address manipulations in the order as executed. Presenting these descriptions in a different order would be misleading. For backward compatibility, perhaps a switch could be provided to control the order. Just a thought. That would require not a switch, but a mechanism to specify the order of all five cleanup server's address manipulations. Wietse
RE: Need help with canonical maps
Thanks again Wietse. Hmm. ADDRESS_REWRITING_README describes the address manipulations in the order as executed. Presenting these descriptions in a different order would be misleading. Yes. And it's very well written. But assuming or inferring information that is not in a technical document is usually not a wise move. Currently, the processing order is implied by the order mentioned in the document. But I didn't want to assume that. I would respectfully suggest an explicit statement in the document so the reader doesn't need to infer the processing order. That would require not a switch, but a mechanism to specify the order of all five cleanup server's address manipulations. Yes, good point. Perhaps that's too complex to address what may be a shrinking problem today (cleaning up legacy client addresses). Best regards, and thanks again for the quick help! Michael
Re: canonical maps
On 2014-01-08 3:18 PM, R. Berger dove...@w4r.nl wrote: In sendmail, when I use @domain.nl %1...@otherdomain.nl domain.nl wil automatically have 29 users also. If there is a mail send to n...@domain.nl and n...@otherdomain.nl does not exist, it will be rejected. In postfixadmin this will be a domain alias but that isn't working with local virtual users. So you just want domain aliasing (which does not break recipient validation)? This can be done with properly constructed SQL... And your OP said you are using postfixadmin? If you are indeed using it, then you can do this very easily in postfixadmin by simply using the alias domain feature. -- Best regards, Charles
canonical maps
hi, I have the following problem coming from sendmail: This is how it is set up in virtusertable: @domain.nl %1...@otherdomain.nl us...@domain.nl localuser1 us...@domain.nl localuser2 us...@domain.nl localuser3 I am using postfixadmin and the local users are working. But how do I forward all the other mail? I understand I can do that for a complete domain using canonical_maps option but does it work together with local virtual users? Thanks, Roger
Re: canonical maps
R. Berger: hi, I have the following problem coming from sendmail: This is how it is set up in virtusertable: @domain.nl %1...@otherdomain.nl us...@domain.nl localuser1 us...@domain.nl localuser2 us...@domain.nl localuser3 If you can explain what the above means for Sendmail, then someone can try to show how to do the same in Postfix. I suspect that you want to use Postfix virtual_alias_maps instead of canonical_maps. If the equivalent is this (in terms of hash: files): /etc/postfix/main.cf: virtual_alias_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/virtual ... /etc/postfix/virtual us...@domain.nl localus...@example.com us...@domain.nl localus...@example.com us...@domain.nl localus...@example.com @domain.nl @otherdomain.nl Then you are accepting mail with non-existent recipient addresses and forwarding it to otherdomain.nl. That is bad. Such mail will bounce and you become a backscatter source. Instead, use this: /etc/postfix/main.cf: virtual_alias_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/virtual ... virtual_alias_domains = otherdomain.nl ... /etc/postfix/virtual us...@domain.nl localus...@example.com us...@domain.nl localus...@example.com us...@domain.nl localus...@example.com That will reject mail for users that you haven't defined. Wietse I am using postfixadmin and the local users are working. But how do I forward all the other mail? I understand I can do that for a complete domain using canonical_maps option but does it work together with local virtual users? Thanks, Roger
Re: canonical maps
Wietse Venema schreef op 8-1-2014 20:20: R. Berger: hi, I have the following problem coming from sendmail: This is how it is set up in virtusertable: @domain.nl %1...@otherdomain.nl us...@domain.nl localuser1 us...@domain.nl localuser2 us...@domain.nl localuser3 If you can explain what the above means for Sendmail, then someone can try to show how to do the same in Postfix. I suspect that you want to use Postfix virtual_alias_maps instead of canonical_maps. If the equivalent is this (in terms of hash: files): /etc/postfix/main.cf: virtual_alias_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/virtual ... /etc/postfix/virtual us...@domain.nllocalus...@example.com us...@domain.nllocalus...@example.com us...@domain.nllocalus...@example.com @domain.nl @otherdomain.nl Then you are accepting mail with non-existent recipient addresses and forwarding it to otherdomain.nl. That is bad. Such mail will bounce and you become a backscatter source. Instead, use this: /etc/postfix/main.cf: virtual_alias_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/virtual ... virtual_alias_domains = otherdomain.nl ... /etc/postfix/virtual us...@domain.nl localus...@example.com us...@domain.nl localus...@example.com us...@domain.nl localus...@example.com That will reject mail for users that you haven't defined. Wietse It's not exactly a catchall. @domain.nl%1...@otherdomain.nl means that somen...@domain.nl is send to somen...@otherdomain.nl So if there is no catchall for otherdomain.nl there is no catchall for domain.nl both domains are local btw. So basically you have 3 local users which are directly connected to domain.nl and the rest has to be forwarded to another domain if the username in front of the @ exists. I am using postfixadmin and the local users are working. But how do I forward all the other mail? I understand I can do that for a complete domain using canonical_maps option but does it work together with local virtual users? Thanks, Roger
Re: canonical maps
R. Berger: It's not exactly a catchall. @domain.nl%1...@otherdomain.nl means that somen...@domain.nl is send to somen...@otherdomain.nl I wrote that you will accept mail for non-existent recipients in otherdomain.nl. That is bad. Your system will be sending backscatter mail to innocent people. Wietse
Re: canonical maps
Wietse Venema schreef op 8-1-2014 20:47: R. Berger: It's not exactly a catchall. @domain.nl%1...@otherdomain.nl means that somen...@domain.nl is send to somen...@otherdomain.nl I wrote that you will accept mail for non-existent recipients in otherdomain.nl. That is bad. Your system will be sending backscatter mail to innocent people. Wietse Why is that? Otherdomain has 29 users In sendmail, when I use @domain.nl %1...@otherdomain.nl domain.nl wil automatically have 29 users also. If there is a mail send to n...@domain.nl and n...@otherdomain.nl does not exist, it will be rejected. In postfixadmin this will be a domain alias but that isn't working with local virtual users. Roger
Re: canonical maps
R. Berger: R. Berger: It's not exactly a catchall. @domain.nl%1...@otherdomain.nl means that somen...@domain.nl is send to somen...@otherdomain.nl I wrote that you will accept mail for non-existent recipients in otherdomain.nl. That is bad. Your system will be sending backscatter mail to innocent people. Why is that? Because you never explained what the Sendmail configuration does. With Postfix you will have to enumerate all 29 recipients. Wietse
Re: canonical maps
Wietse Venema schreef op 8-1-2014 21:46: R. Berger: R. Berger: It's not exactly a catchall. @domain.nl%1...@otherdomain.nl means that somen...@domain.nl is send to somen...@otherdomain.nl I wrote that you will accept mail for non-existent recipients in otherdomain.nl. That is bad. Your system will be sending backscatter mail to innocent people. Why is that? Because you never explained what the Sendmail configuration does. With Postfix you will have to enumerate all 29 recipients. Wietse OK, sorry about that. Anyway thanks a lot and thanks for the excellent software!
