From: Victor Duchovni (Victor.DuchovniMorganStanley.com)
Date: Wed Nov 21 2007 - 13:23:55 CST

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

On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 07:14:35PM +0000, Keean Schupke wrote:

> Actually, this is no good, as I would need the transport chosen by
> relayhost not by eventual destination... as we will be using
> "sender_dependent_relayhost_maps" to decide which relay to send things
> through...
>
> Don't suppose sender_dependent_relayhost_maps could be made to work
> like transport maps? so that the RHS is "transport:next_hop"? This
> would allow me to choose different transport options (vai the
> master.cf) for different senders.

It replaces just the nexthop, not the transport. A single transport should
suffice for all the evil nexthops. The nexthop could be another Postfix
instance on the same machine, where the real connection is made to the
remote machines, the passwords are handled, ... and the smtp concurrency
limit is 1.

It sounds like the hosts handle more than just mail to battleship
titanic bureaucracy. The same host also sends mail on behalf of
other organizations. It may be best to add another instance to
confine the damage from the work-around (queue congestion, ...)

--
        Viktor.

Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.

To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit
http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below:
<mailto:majordomopostfix.org?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users>

If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not
send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put
"It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.

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