On Sat, Jan 15, 2005, April Lorenzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > So what do we do with this: > > > > dbmail_users (id, user): > > 1 foo at server > > 2 foonew at server > > > > dbmail_aliases (alias, deliver-to): > > foo at server 2 > > > > That is to say, we're trying to get all mail to 'foo at server ' to > > land in the INBOX of 'foonew at server '. What happens: > > > > Currently: > > Mail for 'foo at server ' goes to user 1. > > > > Aaron's Proposal: > > Mail for 'foo at server ' goes to user 2. > > > > Thomas' Proposal: > > Mail for 'foo at server ' goes to user 2 and user 1. > > Suggested correction to "what happens in this scenario" with Aaron's > proposal: > > Mail for 'foo at server' goes to user 2 and user 1 - because the admin > makes an explicit alias for any user who should receive mail addressed > to 'foo at server': > > dbmail_aliases (alias, deliver-to): > foo at server 2 > foo at server 1 > > Just as I believed when I set up my dbmail 2.x server months ago - that > I would need an alias for every user. So Aaron's proposal relieves me of > having an alias for each user - which of course I could avail myself of > right now - since the new dbmail doesn't actually require an alias > anymore... but I would definitely have no problem with the the concept > that if I am going to use ANY alias for user 1 ... I must ALSO add an > alias explicitly to user 1. > > This seems to me to be the most backward compatible with the way dbmail > aliases and users used to work, while retaining the advantages of not > requiring an explicit alias if the only deliver-to for the address *is* > a user matching the address.
I just drew this out on paper and tested it, and you are absolutely correct that this would mimic DBMail 1.x behavior, and make quite a bit of sense as instructions; basically, aliases override usernames. I'll post a patch in a few minutes. Aaron
