From: Wietse Venema (wietseporcupine.org)
Date: Tue Jul 01 2003 - 19:37:19 CDT

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Simon Matthews:
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Simon Matthews:
> > > > > I have also noticed that the transport map does not always override the
> > > > > default message delivery method. I had a working Postfix 1.x
> > > > > configuration, in which I had specified the doamins for which I wanted to
> > > > > accept mail in the "mydestination" parameter and then specified that all
> > > > > email for these domains should be relayed to another machine via the
> > > > > transport map. This may not be the correct way to do this, but according
> > > > > to the documentation on the "Mail transport switch" it should
> > > > > work, and it did with Postfix 1.x.
> > > > >
> > > > > When I upgraded to 2.x, I observed that this worked ONLY for users that
> > > > > either had a local login or had a matching entry in the virtual_users
> > > > > table. Removing the domains from "mydestination" and adding them to
> > > > > "relay_domains" fixed the problem.
> > > >
> > > > What was the exact error message?
> > >
> > > It was:
> > > "User unknown in local recipient table"
> >
> > That has nothing to do with transport maps, and everything to do
> > with the information that you can find in LOCAL_RECIPIENT_README
> > and in ADDRESS_CLASS_README.
>
> Wietse,
>
> Once again, thanks for clarifying this. Just a minor additional point: the
> emails were rejected with a 550 code, not 450 as the document suggests.

The mail is rejected with 450 AS A TRANSITIONAL AID. This is
described in documentation. I don't want people to suddenly
lose mail going from Postfix 1.x 2.0. The safety net will
be removed from the code in a year or so.

Why do people always try to know better than me.

        Wietse

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]