On 8 Jun 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 03:54:11PM -0400, Ted Zlatanov wrote: >> I have the following system (among others) in locals: >> >> smtp.spl.harvard.edu >> >> According to the docs, then, mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] should >> work, right? It should go to the local USER.
> This is a known limitation of qmail-ldap. I could not find it in the docs. I only saw references that qmail-smtpd uses "locals" or "locals.cdb" but no mention that the local delivery ignores "locals." Maybe that should be noted. > The main reason for this is that in an ISP environment you do not > want this behaviour. It is considered bad when a customer uses the > domainname of a other customer. Sure, but why not have a "ldaplocals" control file for people like me that are not an ISP? I can see that you may not want to use "locals" but "ldaplocals" will not confuse people. > On www.lifewithqmail.org/ldap is a example how to rewrite a domain to a > other one with virtualhosts, the alias user and the forward utility. > At least I think I have seen it there. > Something similar could be done with a catchall account. Sure, but just like adding 600 mailForwardingAddress entries to each user, it's a hack. Why not use a "ldaplocals" file, that's what it's for (when it's called "locals"). The operation can be very simple - if the domain is in ldaplocals, replace it with `cat me` and try delivering that. > In most cases mail addresses of the form [EMAIL PROTECTED] are > generated by a missconfiguration. For example qmail has a few control > files to fix this (defaultdomain, plusdomain, etc.). At least I never > found a good reason why something like this should be done. In an ideal world, I would have control over every MUA and every user's mind as well. There's plenty of bad MUAs that I have to handle, and users don't want to leave them. Unfortunately, it's not something I can change. So I can either do the virtual setup you suggest, or qmail-ldap can be patched to support "ldaplocals". If I'm the only one who needs this feature, perhaps I should add it to the C code and keep the patch for my personal use. I hope someone else speaks up that they need it too :) I'm not a good C coder anymore, so I doubt my patch will be up to your standards. Ted
