Shine, Gary wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Heiko Schlittermann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 28 January 2007 17:16 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [exim] Last Config Issue > > Shine, Gary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (So 28 Jan 2007 22:54:32 CET): >> We have a virtual user file which looks like > ... >> data = >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]/usr/exim/pop3.aliases}} >> file_transport = address_file >> pipe_transport = address_pipe >> debug_print = "R: virtual_aliases for [EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > Try lsearch*@ instead of lsearch. > > > Best regards from Dresden > Viele Grüße aus Dresden > Heiko Schlittermann > -- > SCHLITTERMANN.de ---------------------------- internet & unix support - > Heiko Schlittermann HS12-RIPE ----------------------------------------- > gnupg encrypted messages are welcome - key ID: 48D0359B --------------- > gnupg fingerprint: 3061 CFBF 2D88 F034 E8D2 7E92 EE4E AC98 48D0 359B - > > > But I think that will ONLY find the catchall address rather than looking for > the sepcific match and then only using the catchall if the specific is > missing? > > Gary > > >
Gary, 'Side issue' entirely - but are you sure you really WANT a 'catch all' address? Most of us gave them up for dead ages ago on the grounds that all they received was tons of dictionary-attack spam. Legit senders who perhaps mis-keyed a user's name are better served with an immediate rejection message so they *know* the message did not go through and address is flawed. A catchall hides that - potentially 'forever'. JM2CW, Bill -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
