RE : RE : How to forward mail when mailbox not localy existing
in [Postfix]
|
Prev: RE : How to forward mail when mailbox not localy existing
Next: same mailboxname in both virtual alias maps && virtual mailbox mapsto create a forward ?
From: Yannick on 2 May 2010 18:41 I tnink you're talking about the "local_recipient_maps =" setting but if I do not use it, I get a " Recipient address rejected: User unknown in local recipient table" and the mail is not forwarded. And, with this setting (just empty), user localy existing (in the /etc/password) are receiving their mail on the new server (on the frontend) I understand your raction but it works ! Thanks Reinaldo. _________________________________ De : owner-postfix-users(a)postfix.org [owner-postfix-users(a)postfix.org] de la part de Reinaldo de Carvalho [reinaldoc(a)gmail.com] Date d'envoi : lundi 3 mai 2010 00:26 À : Postfix Objet : Re: RE : How to forward mail when mailbox not localy existing On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Yannick <yannick(a)campana.be> wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks a lot to all of you (Ralf, Stefano and Appliantologist) for your great support !!! > > I think I'll use the Ralf solution as I don't have to maintain any additional list , by just putting: > > luser_relay = $user@[IP_address_of_old_server] > local_recipient_maps = > > All the mailbox not yet localy created on the new server will be forwarded to the old. > Please, don't turn off (local) recipient checking. -- Reinaldo de Carvalho http://korreio.sf.net http://python-cyrus.sf.net "Don't try to adapt the software to the way you work, but rather yourself to the way the software works" (myself)
From: mouss on 2 May 2010 19:04 Yannick a �crit : > I tnink you're talking about the "local_recipient_maps =" setting but if I do not use it, I get a " Recipient address rejected: User unknown in local recipient table" and the mail is not forwarded. > > And, with this setting (just empty), user localy existing (in the /etc/password) are receiving their mail on the new server (on the frontend) > > I understand your raction but it works ! now test by sending mail to a user that doesn't exists (nor locally nor on the "internal" server). chances are this will generate a bounce message. if so, then you are a source of backscatter and you may be blacklisted. search the web for "backscatter" and you'll see why it's bad.
From: Noel Jones on 2 May 2010 19:08 On 5/2/2010 5:41 PM, Yannick wrote: > I tnink you're talking about the "local_recipient_maps =" setting but if I do not use it, I get a " Recipient address rejected: User unknown in local recipient table" and the mail is not forwarded. > > And, with this setting (just empty), user localy existing (in the /etc/password) are receiving their mail on the new server (on the frontend) > > I understand your raction but it works ! It works, except that your queue will be filled with undeliverable bounces to nonexistant spammer addresses, and you will eventually get blacklisted as a backscatter source. If you want to use luser_relay, make a single hash list of ALL your valid users, regardless of where they are delivered, and point local_recipient_maps at that list. On today's internet a design that accepts mail to any address and then generates a bounce for the undeliverables is just irresponsible. A design that accepts mail to any address and then discards undeliverables (or sends them to a catch-all, which isn't much different) is a little better; at least that way you only screw yourself and not innocent bystanders. The way to fix your design is to create a list of all your valid recipients. I suppose you could use reject_unverified_recipient if you're unable to create a list. http://www.postfix.org/ADDRESS_VERIFICATION_README.html#recipient -- Noel Jones
From: "Stefano L." on 3 May 2010 02:05
On Sun, 02 May 2010 18:08:25 -0500, Noel Jones <njones(a)megan.vbhcs.org> wrote: > It works, except that your queue will be filled with > undeliverable bounces to nonexistant spammer addresses, and > you will eventually get blacklisted as a backscatter source. Thank you Noel, I understood. So also my suggestion is not a good idea because, as I just tested, the bounce is generated by the second server and goes then back all the way to the original user as a bounce. I will change my configuration too. Regards, Stefano L. |