On Sun, Nov 23, 2003 at 03:31:53PM -0700, Sancho2k.net Lists wrote:
> As a question about the following option from Makefile:
> 
> -DDASH_EXT to enable the dash_ext patch for extended mail addresses
> 
> ...Am I wrong in thinking that native qmail-1.03 already has the ability 
> to support email addresses such as [EMAIL PROTECTED] On my old 
> installation I successfully used extension addresses without having to 
> patch the distribution. Thanks in advance for an answer to this.
> 
> I pose this question while troubleshooting a problem I'm having with 
> deliveries to a user called 'sancho-spam' on my qmail-ldap server. I 
> believe I have my qmail-ldap configuration correct, and here are some 
> snippets from the output of qmail-showctl:
> 
>  user-ext delimiter: -.
>  ldapdefaultdotmode: Default dot mode for ldap users is both.
> 
> Some information from qmail-ldaplookup on this user:
> 
>  qmailDotMode: both
>  homeDirectory: /var/vmail/sancho
> 
> # ls -lA /var/vmail/sancho
> -rw-r--r--   1 vmail  vmail   11 Jul 10 00:24 .qmail-spam
> drwx------  20 vmail  vmail  512 Nov 23 15:15 Maildir
> 
> # cat /var/vmail/sancho/.qmail-spam
> #### Leave this commented out to silently drop mail going
> #### to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

qmail-ldap is not doing what you expect. If you wanna catch the mail for
sancho-spam you need a ldap entry for sancho-spam else qmail-ldap will
tell you the account does not exist.

If you enable the dash-ext feature qmail-ldap tries a few more accounts.
In your case:
1) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
3) [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Now if you add [EMAIL PROTECTED] to mailalternateaddress you can emulate
the old qmail behaviour. This works only if you set qmailDotMode to both
or even better dotonly. If you use dotonly mail to sancho-blabla will
result in a no such mailbox error while with both it will be delivered to the
main box. At least this is the theory.

-- 
:wq Claudio

"Contrary to popular belief, penguins are not the salvation of modern   
technology.  Neither do they throw parties for the urban proletariat."

Reply via email to