Ahh, that could be it then. If I set up a new smtp transport for this, how
do I get it to lookup the MX records for the new domain and send it out ? -
I tried a few possibilities, but all that did was try to send it to the
original address rather than the forwarded one (something to do with exim
stripping headers maybe ?).
The local domains situation is not too critical, and the way in which we
store the data seems most accessible through the director, so I think I
will stick with what works in that case.
Many Thanks,
Tristan Graham.
At 10:19 12/09/2000 +0100, Philip Hazel wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Tristan Graham wrote:
>
> > However, I have now come accross the problem that the new_address option
> > appears to be rewriting the message headers rather than using an Envelope.
>
>Please give more details (preferably an example message which goes
>wrong, and the configuration file you are using). If used without a
>transport, new_address should act just like an aliasing operation (which
>modified envelopes).
>
> > Is there a better solution that uses envelopes properly, and is there a
> way
> > to implement this in such a way that I dont have to define the domains as
> > being local (because they aren't local as such) ? I basically need to
> mimic
> > the same behaviour as sendmail does with virtual domains.
>
>The domains are handled locally. That's really what local_domains is all
>about. If you don't want to put them in local_domains, you can pick them
>off in a domainlist router, route them to the local host, and set
>self=local. This then passes them to the directors. But it takes more
>work that just setting local_domains.
>
>--
>Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
>ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
