>
> Thanks for clearing this up, but it still sounds like a kind of dumb
> implementation to have a "naming policy" with "%"... Why the hell not
> just use the email address as the username?

Yeah, that would be nice!  But natively james doesnt support virtual
domains.  And if the email is to [EMAIL PROTECTED], james sees that as an
email to bubba (if prison.com is local). Say you have another local domain
office.com.  [EMAIL PROTECTED] would also go to the bubba mailbox.  So you
need to map a unique email address to a unique local address (ie one without
@).  ie bubba.office.com and bubba.prison.com

>
> However, I'm facing a pretty nasty problem here...
>
> I tried setting up the JDBCVirtualUserTable(JDBCVUT), and the forwarding
> to other domains (not locals) works like a charm.  However, the
> following isn't really related to the JDBCVUT...
>
> If I create an account called bubba%prison.com or [EMAIL PROTECTED] or
> bubba.prison.com, for some reason the SMTP server won't recognize that
> user...  As a matter of fact, when I do the "test account settings" in
> outlook, it just tells me that POP3 connection timed out...
>
> I have no problem adding a new user like bubba25 - works like a charm...
> but for some reason when I start using dots, or "%" or "@", POP3 stops
> working!!!
>
> Any idea why?
>

nope... @ will cause problems - although actually james will let you have
accounts with @ in it, just mail wont get to them. I am pretty sure you can
use % though.  And i am definately sure you can use . - i use
user..at..domain.com, and i bodge some james code to do string replacements
on logins with @ to ..at..

I have no idea why you cant login - try debugging over telnet or looking at
the log files.

Daniel.

> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Daniel Perry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 2:27 AM
> >To: James Users List
> >Subject: RE: Confusion with XMLVirtualUserTable
> >
> >Sadly james doesnt work with accounts with domains, it only uses the
> user
> >part.
> >
> >In your example, if prison.com is a local domain (as determined
> >servernames), james would put the email address in the account 'bubba'.
> If
> >prison.com is not local, it would get sent to the mail server for
> >prison.com.
> >
> >This leads to problems with virtualhosting, which is why you should
> choose
> >a
> >naming policy for local accounts: eg bubba%prison.com (which must be
> local
> >as it's treated as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >Then have rules such as:
> >User: bubba  Domain:  prison.com  Target_Address:  bubba%prison.com
> >User: hubba  Domain:  prison.com  Target_Address:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >Obviously you wont be declaring hotmail.com as local in the servernames
> >block, so it will relay it.
> >
> >Daniel.
> >
> >ps. i've never used xmlvirtualusertable, i'm just making assumptions
> based
> >on heavy use of jdbcvirtualusertable.
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ivan Jouikov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Sent: 08 July 2005 09:00
> >> To: [email protected]
> >> Subject: Confusion with XMLVirtualUserTable
> >>
> >>
> >> Ok I'm trying to get the XMLVirtualUserTable to work so that I can
> have
> >> separate accounts for separate domains, as well as email forwarding
> (as
> >> suggested by Daniel Perry).
> >>
> >> My biggest confusion is - how would the mailet know if I want to
> forward
> >> or I'm simply mapping a virtual user?
> >>
> >> For instance, what if my naming policy is:
> >>
> >> For an account "bubba" at domain "prison.com", the username would be
> >> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"  (this is as straightforward of a naming policy as
> I
> >> could think of, and james allows to create users like that).
> >>
> >> So now, if I put the following in the XMLVirtualUserTable:
> >>
> >> User: bubba  Domain:  prison.com  Target_Address:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >> What will happen?  I'm about to find out, but I just wanted to send
> this
> >> to the mail list.  I mean how would the mailet know if I'm trying to
> >> forward this or if this is a local account?  (well I can think of a
> >> technical way to do it, but I'm asking about the current behavior
> >> implementation).
> >>
> >> Thanks for the responses, but I'm about to give this a shot :-)
> >>
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >No virus found in this incoming message.
> >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> >Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.10/43 - Release Date: 7/6/2005
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to