Quoth Philip Hazel on Fri, Oct 29, 1999:
> On Thu, 28 Oct 1999, Vadim Vygonets wrote:
> > I believe you also don't want to rewrite the Envelope recipient
> > address, right? For me, rewriting RCPT seems like a reasonably
> > easy way to achieve this goal. Using routers to look at
> > $local_part and decide what to do then seems dirtier.
>
> I think my basic feeling about rewriting is that it should be used for
> "standardising" or "canonicising" addresses, and not for determining
> where a message should go.
Hmm. You've got a point. But doing it with routers is really
hard. The clean way would be to catch those addresses with a
router (lookuphost?) and "route" it to the directors. Possible.
But the local part would better be the same in both cases, or
there must be an alias file to handle the case of different local
parts.
And local part suffixes complicate the case even further, but
then, they also complicate the case if rewriting is used. Hey,
Hans and Torsten, if you want suffixes, it would be really
interesting to implement them.
The dirty way to do all this is so bloody filthy that I'd better
wash my keyboard with a soap for even thinking of it.
Vadik.
--
If you think C++ is not overly complicated, just what is a protected
abstract virtual base pure virtual private destructor, and when
was the last time you needed one?
-- Tom Cargill, C++ Journal, Fall 1990.
