Re: question about sender_dependent_default_transport_maps syntax
Wietse Venema porcupine.org> writes:
>
> 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:
> > mysender domain.tldmytransport:
>
> 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.
>
I'm perfectly aware of this. To leave the nexthop destination at default
I need a null nexthop. This is against what the documentation says about
sender_dependent_default_transport_maps ("this does not support the
transport_maps syntax for null transport, null nexthop, or null email
addresses.").
What I'm pointing out here is a possible typo in the docs.
> > /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.
If I wanted further advice about yesterday's topic I would have answered
whithout changing the subject, as I did this morning.
But in this case, I don't. I just asked for clarifications about the docs.
And that's exactly the reason I started a new thread.
As far as I'm concerned, our agreement still stands, and I'd
appreciate if you could help with configuration about that matter, since
*those* requirements, as reported yesterday, haven't changed.
Fabio
Re: question about sender_dependent_default_transport_maps syntax
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.tldmytransport: 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
question about sender_dependent_default_transport_maps syntax
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.tldmytransport: /etc/postfix/master.cf: mytransport unix - - n - - smtp -o smtp_generic_maps=hash:/etc/postfix/generic What am I missing here? Thanks a lot Fabio Sangiovanni
