On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 05:25:05AM -0500, Allan Wind wrote:
> I have an odd requirement of redirecting info@ for a reasonable
> large number of domains to [email protected].
Wietse has already answered about the problem you made, but I have
some things to add. First, WHY are you doing this? Why all domains
and why only info@? This does not make much sense.
> Figured this could be done with 2.7.1 using:
>
> virtual_alias_domains = pcre:${config_directory}/virtual_alias_domains
>
> /.*/ anything
Same as "virtual_alias_domains = static:yes".
> virtual_alias_maps = pcre:${config_directory}/virtual_alias_maps
>
> /^info@.*/ [email protected]
>
> however this fails with:
>
> Mar 10 09:14:26 regatta postfix/cleanup[1448]: 881C16B:
> message-id=<>
> Mar 10 09:14:26 regatta postfix/qmgr[1441]: 881C16B:
> from=<[email protected]>, size=199, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
> Mar 10 09:14:26 regatta postfix/error[1449]: 881C16B:
> to=<[email protected]>, orig_to=<[email protected]>, relay=none,
> delay=9.4, delays=9.4/0.01/0/0.01, dsn=5.0.0, status=bounced
> (User unknown in virtual alias table)
This means that example.com is in virtual_alias_domains, but
[email protected] does not resolve in virtual_alias_maps to an address
which is NOT in virtual_alias_domains.
> Mar 10 09:14:26 regatta postfix/bounce[1450]: 881C16B: sender
> non-delivery notification: 8039170
> Mar 10 09:14:26 regatta postfix/qmgr[1441]: 881C16B: removed
>
> I think this because postfix is not able to validate the
> sender, [email protected], as a valid virtual user.
Not so. The sender address has nothing to do with it.
> This is usually the desired behavior, but in this case every
Is it desired? Why? I don't try to validate sender addresses, and
neither does/should most of the rest of the Internet.
> domain is considered virtual. alias maps is complete, i.e.
> I do want to bounce all other recipients besides info@.
Typically one should also have postmaster@ and abuse@ role addresses.
> smtpd_reject_unlisted_sender is set to default 'no', and
> smtpd_sender_restrictions is empty. If I tweak the pcre to
> exclude the domain of sender it works as expected, and it also
> works fine with I bite the bullet and explicitly list out
> all the domains either with a pcre or switching to hash.
So why not do this? What is wrong with bullet biting? That is, in
fact, the best possible answer I can see, from my very limited
perspective of understanding the real problem and goal.
> Is there a way to disable the sender check? Or tell
> postfix that every user is valid for the sender check
> but not as a recipient?
You have seen a correlation and have assumed causation. This is
fallacious. We don't know what this example.org and example.com
really are. When munging domain names you must be perfectly
consistent; otherwise you will make it impossible to diagnose mail
routing problems.
--
http://rob0.nodns4.us/ -- system administration and consulting
Offlist GMX mail is seen only if "/dev/rob0" is in the Subject:
