On 19 Jan 2006, at 20:21, Chris Knadle wrote:
> 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. ;-)
>
do you mean you have not taken the time to lookup your-exim-source-
dir/doc/spec.txt? Because, if you had, you would have found that:
> An example entry I would look to do would be:
> andy-*@???
> Which would match all of the following:
> andy-something@???
> andy-whatever@???
> etc.
is what local_part_suffix is about.
[...]
> 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.
you are asking if something is possible with exim4? The question
should be the other way 'round: find something that is not possible
with exim...
> 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
too difficult with Exim4? Again: take your time to read the spec.txt
(or its html version, on the site).
> 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.]
sorry, but I did not understand your current understanding.
Anyway, in a router:
local_part_suffix = -*
local_part_suffix_optional
will do what you want for determining what a local_part is, then you
can do what lookup you find more suitable to determine if a
local_part is valid.
Giuliano
