Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email firstname.lastname@example.org
From: mouss (mlist.onlyfree.fr)
Date: Thu Jun 07 2007 - 04:04:00 CDT
Juan Miscara wrote:
> Le Vendredi 1 Juin 2007 12:57, mouss a écrit :
> Thank you for showing me the new way but I fail to see how changing to a new
> syntax will help me. From what I see it is a precedence issue. Postfix uses
> the virtual_alias_maps table and stops. It ignores the virtual_mailbox_maps
This is normal behaviour: not everybody wants a copy when using virtual
aliases. if you want a copy, the standard way is to add the original
recipient to the results of the virtual alias lookup. an alias like this:
fooexample.com fooexample.com, barexample.org
will forward to bar but deliver a copy to foo.
now you don't need to put all the addresses in a single row, because
postfix can concatenate multiple rows. so if your myqsl virtual alias
table contains two rows like this:
fooexample.com | fooexample.com
fooexample.com | barexample.com
then foo will get a copy.
If the behaviour is on a per-address basis, then you need to add rows to
your virtual alias table. If the bahviour applies to all your mailbox
addresses, then you can let mysql do this for you by using two tables.
how to do this depends on the structure of your tables. In all cases,
you can use UNION in your mysql statement so that mysql will return rows
from each table.
> Can you be more explicit on how I can have an incoming message sent
> to both to a remote address as well as a local one?