From: Magnus Bäck (magnusdsek.lth.se)
Date: Mon Aug 01 2005 - 10:53:18 CDT

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

On Monday, August 01, 2005 at 11:50 CEST,
     Tony Earnshaw <tonyebilly.demon.nl> wrote:

> Having looked at the newaliases-style alias map, I understand that
> it's differently formatted from other maps.

Yes, local alias files in Postfix have this particular format, as
documented in aliases(5). There is no reason to refer to this format as
"newaliases-style". It simply is the official local alias file format
for indexed maps. The fact that a database built with postmap(1) works
is probably more of an implementation sideeffect rather than a behaviour
that can be relied on.

> I've never used such a formatted map for aliases; apart from a brief
> excursion into a mailman alias saga, which I left for Dax Kelson's
> postfix-to-mailman.py, I've never used /etc/aliases.

That certainly explains your confusion.

> All my alias maps and virtual alias maps are in LDAP, which uses
> standard table lookups and "just works". If I do use an ordinarily
> formatted hash map for /etc/aliases, that works too. In fact, I can
> do more with such a map than with a newaliases-formatted map.

How so?

> Neither are virtual alias maps, as detailed in VIRTUAL_README,
> formatted in the newaliases (or as you put it "old unix style
> aliases files) style.

No, of course they're not. The format of virtual alias files is
documented in virtual(5).

--
Magnus Bäck
magnusdsek.lth.se

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