From: Victor Duchovni (Victor.Duchovnimorganstanley.com)
Date: Thu May 01 2008 - 14:34:54 CDT

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

On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 06:54:41AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:

> > Do you think me admitting that line was *the* problem, or it was just
> > something wrong you noticed? Basically I am trying to get a warm
> > fuzzy feeling that this isn't going to happen again ;-)

> The owner-listname alias forces Postfix to create a new queue file
> for the mailing list recipients, with one status record per recipient.
> Thus, deferral of one recipient does not cause the whole list to
> be deferred and retried.

By default, :include:/file aliases already do indirect delivery, so

> The owner-listname alias is required in any case, so that senders
> don't get all the non-delivery notifications. Instead, they are
> sent to a person who can actually fix the problem, for example by
> removing dead addresses.

the main benefit of "ower-listname" with ":include:..." aliases is
redirecting the non-delivery notices. You only get multiple deliveries
when:

    - The :include: alias member is listed with other "direct" recipients
    for the same alias, and some of those (soft) fail.

    - The alias that contains ":include:" is itself included in another
    alias, and delivery to the containing alias is failing.

--
        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 ]