virtual_mailbox_maps - just for virtual(8) ?
in [Postfix]
|
Prev: smtpd_recipient_restrictions = reject_unlisted_recipient vs. smtpd_reject_unlisted_recipient = yes
Next: (solved) Installing smtp auth did not help my spam issue Belowis example
From: Phil Howard on 23 Jun 2010 15:39 Is virtual_mailbox_maps just for virtual(8) (the postfix virtual delivery agent ... which I am not using) ... or is it also used for smtpd_reject_unlisted_recipient even when virtual_transport = something else like dovecot? Can it just have an "OK" value to mean "yeah, this is a real recipient here, go ahead and accept the mail and just deliver it to the same place" or do I need to put delivery paths in there?
From: Victor Duchovni on 23 Jun 2010 17:06 On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 03:39:58PM -0400, Phil Howard wrote: > Is virtual_mailbox_maps just for virtual(8) (the postfix virtual > delivery agent ... which I am not using) ... or is it also used for > smtpd_reject_unlisted_recipient even when virtual_transport = > something else like dovecot? Can it just have an "OK" value to mean > "yeah, this is a real recipient here, go ahead and accept the mail and > just deliver it to the same place" or do I need to put delivery paths > in there? The answers (the latter and the former) are as you guessed. Be more confident in the accuracy of your reading of the documentation, you can safely ask fewer questions here... -- Viktor.
From: Phil Howard on 23 Jun 2010 17:33
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 17:06, Victor Duchovni <Victor.Duchovni(a)morganstanley.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 03:39:58PM -0400, Phil Howard wrote: > >> Is virtual_mailbox_maps just for virtual(8) (the postfix virtual >> delivery agent ... which I am not using) ... or is it also used for >> smtpd_reject_unlisted_recipient even when virtual_transport = >> something else like dovecot? Can it just have an "OK" value to mean >> "yeah, this is a real recipient here, go ahead and accept the mail and >> just deliver it to the same place" or do I need to put delivery paths >> in there? > > The answers (the latter and the former) are as you guessed. Be more > confident in the accuracy of your reading of the documentation, you > can safely ask fewer questions here... It's kind a hard to figure out when my reading comes up with TWO (or more, sometimes) conflicting ways of doing things. Are you saying both work? If the answer is yes to "Can it just have OK" then it would be no to "or do I need to ...". I've hit a combination that works. I'm going to review it and try to make sure it is clean (not including any test stuff that doesn't make sense). And I need to test and make sure it didn't break other things. |