On Thursday 19 January 2006 13:55, Tony Finch wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Chris Knadle wrote:
> > Well, I just became a backup MX for an admin that is using Postfix
> > that is making extensive use of these addresses with wildcards after the
> > local_part.
>
> Do you mean something like local_part_suffix?
Unfortunately I'm not sure what you mean, either. ;-)
An example entry I would look to do would be:
andy-*@???
Which would match all of the following:
andy-something@???
andy-whatever@???
etc.
> Alternatively, you could just not bother to maintain a copy of the
> userlist and use recipient callout verification instead.
Yes, I did think of that, and it is a good suggestion. I haven't suggested
that to the other admin yet, as I'm trying to avoid doing that as it
generates more traffic and this admin is on a somewhat slow static DSL line.
Also, I've had several requests in the past for this type of wildcards for
particular users of my own anyway, so I decided to work on the problem
regardless and try to come down to a "yay or nay" as to whether it is
possible with Exim4 or not before falling back to alternatives.
Callout verification is the best fallback strategy, so once I find out that
it's too difficult to do with Exim4 I can offer that as a "take it or leave
it".
Another thing I thought of was breaking out into a script to do the lookup
in bash or perl, but I just don't like the idea of having to do that and
again wanted to find out if there was a way to do it directly in Exim4 first.
Then I considered doing email routing with ldap, but that has a similar
problem because the time in which wildcards can be used is in the address
used for the lookup and not a wildcard in an address that's stored in the
directory. [At least that's my current understanding after doing some
experiments.]
So -- that's what brings me here. ;-)
- Chris
--
Chris Knadle
Chris.Knadle@???
