2011/1/26 Stefano Bagnara <[email protected]>: > Il 26 gennaio 2011 10.00.39 UTC+1, Eric Charles <[email protected]> ha scritto: >> Hi, >> >> So we've got the api: "alias maps to existinguser" :) >> >> 1. Should alias always exist as user? >> 1.1 no => we need to update ValidRecipientHandler (and maybe other smtp >> handlers) to make it work, otherwise users will be sorry. >> 1.2 yes => we could automatically create the alias user if it does not >> exists (but with which password ?) or throw an exception asking to create >> the user beforehand. > > 1.1 > IIRC we ValidRecipientHandler also supports an additional regex to > match further addresses (in case you want to deal with them with > mailets): do I remember correctly? Otherwise I think we should support > this someway, so we get the benefits of fast fail during SMTP > conversation also when people wants to write mailet based processors. > >> 2. Can we map to a non-existing user (for further processing but >> mailets,...) >> 2.1. no => we could automatically create the user if it does not exist (but >> with which password ?) or throw an exception asking to create the user >> beforehand. >> 2.2 yes => we need to update ValidRecipientHandler (and maybe other smtp >> handlers) to make it work, otherwise users will be sorry. > > 2.2 > >> 3. Should we stricly follow the other MTAs working >> 3.1. no => this may be confusing for users used to other MTAs (btw we >> already diverge with the virtualhosting enabled by default) >> 3.2. yes => we benefit from all the experience of those MTAs, but we may be > > 3.2 > >> My preference goes to 1.2, 2.1 and 3.1. >> I see virtualusers more like "links between existing users". The link can be >> set or can be removed, users are there and remain. > > Maybe "virtual user" is not a good name. I see it as a generic rewrite method. > With a single map I can add aliases, custom errors, 1-to-many > recipients, domain mappings and much more.
I agree... > > I think the old 2.3 behaviour was not good nor intuitive WRT user > aliasing and forwarding (that required fake users to create aliases) > and in fact we agreed to remove aliasing and forwarding from core > because it was a weird/unexpected behaviour. > > I know I'm not a good target user for this because I used sendmail > since '96 so much that I've been used to Eric Allman language for > rewriting (but thanks God I forgot the language now!) but I don't know > any MTA using virtual users as mapping between users like you explain > in this mail. You should be very happy you forgot about the language ;) > > That said we can even have both behaviours supported by different > implementations. Maybe the behaviour I propose is better reflected by > a "RecipientRewriteTable" name instead of "VirtualUserTable" name. > > Stefano I like the name.. I think it would be much better explain the usage :) Bye, Norman --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
