From: Josef Karthauser (joetao.org.uk)
Date: Tue Mar 06 2007 - 03:30:11 CST

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

On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 02:14:20PM -0600, Noel Jones wrote:
> >>A comment somewhere here in the documentation to the effect that the
> >>virtual_transport relay is responsible for validating the recipient
> >>addresses as there are circumstances (such as local delivery) in it
> >>could be asked to deliver mail to users which are not defined in the
> >>virtual_mailbox_maps, would not be at all out of place. In my research
> >>of this issue I have seen that it is not only me who is under this
> >>misapprehension.
>
> Please stop this nonsense.
> The sendmail(1) command is designed to *always* accept mail[1], even
> if postfix is not running. This has nothing to do with
> virtual_mailbox_maps or aliases or whatever. This is simply because
> there are too many system utilities that expect to be able to send
> mail via sendmail(1) and will not deal gracefully with a rejection to
> a command line mail program.

Didn't you read my emails? Not once did I say that I care about
sendmail errors. The discussion is entirely about virtual transports
and nothing to do with sendmail error reporting. (Reread my paragraph
above... where does it even mention sendmail?)

Several people have jumped down my throat over this; stop with the knee
jerk reactions people!

Joe

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAkXtNKMACgkQXVIcjOaxUBZ0oACeNSJYTJappXmMMjLQbHVOa+bb
uxEAoKaoDDhc/S7GM3VU2QL+C07hx0Gx
=bmUA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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