|
Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com |
hellfire_at_royle.com
Date: Mon Feb 03 2003 - 11:45:40 CST
hmmm, I've gone over the text you mentioned but I can't put together a
solution. I believe my problem would be solved if I could manage to get the
same functionality of "domain.com | smtp:mailhost.domain.com" from the
transport mapping to work inside the virtual system. ie - domain.com |
virtual in my transport map and "domain.com | smtp:mailhost.domain.com" as 1
entry in my virtual table.
The postfix man page for virtual indicate that specific takes precidence
over such an entry so user1
domain.com would be routed internall as it
should with anything else being shunted off to the next host indicated.
-tjh
-----Original Message-----
From: wietse
porcupine.org [mailto:wietse
porcupine.org]
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 9:57 AM
To: Postfix users
Subject: Re: Selective Virtual Delivery
The Postfix 2.0 transport map will let you send mail for specific address to
a non-default delivery transport, but you could also use the virtual alias
map (see FAQ: delivering some users locally).
Wietse
hellfire
royle.com:
> I am looking for a way to implement the following -
>
> smtp1 -> pop1 -> internal Exchange server
> smtp2 -> "
>
> The 2 smtp servers out front would be configured to accept and relay
> mail for the domains I need in to the pop box, handled via a standard
> transport map. This pop box would be configured to direct all the mail
> that is bound for the internal Exchange server inward to it. I have a
> small test setup of this config working now.
>
> The last piece of the puzzle is how could I (if possible) get the pop
> box to
> *hold* certain mail that is bound for the internal Exchange server? At the
> moment I can get it to do one or the other - deliver locally or pass. By
> default I would want all mail to be passed in, excluding the 2 dozen or so
> addresses that I need to maintain the pop access for. It seems like this
> should be a trivial configuration, but after a week of googling and
> searching the list archives I have yet to make forward progress.
>
> Any pointers would be appreciated.
>
> -tjh
>
>
>
>
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]