-----Original Message-----
From: W B Hacker [
mailto:wbh@conducive.org]
Sent: 29 January 2007 13:29
To: exim users
Subject: Re: [exim] Last Config Issue
Shine, Gary wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Heiko Schlittermann [mailto:hs@schlittermann.de]
> Sent: 28 January 2007 17:16
> To: exim-users@???
> Subject: Re: [exim] Last Config Issue
>
> Shine, Gary <gshine@???> (So 28 Jan 2007 22:54:32 CET):
>> We have a virtual user file which looks like
> ...
>> data =
>> ${lookup{$local_part@$domain}lsearch{/usr/exim/pop3.aliases}}
>> file_transport = address_file
>> pipe_transport = address_pipe
>> debug_print = "R: virtual_aliases for $local_part@$domain"
>
> Try lsearch*@ instead of lsearch.
>
>
> Best regards from Dresden
> Viele Grüße aus Dresden
> Heiko Schlittermann
> --
> SCHLITTERMANN.de ---------------------------- internet & unix support
> - Heiko Schlittermann HS12-RIPE
> -----------------------------------------
> gnupg encrypted messages are welcome - key ID: 48D0359B
> --------------- gnupg fingerprint: 3061 CFBF 2D88 F034 E8D2 7E92 EE4E
> AC98 48D0 359B -
>
>
> But I think that will ONLY find the catchall address rather than
> looking for the sepcific match and then only using the catchall if the
> specific is missing?
>
> Gary
>
>
>
Gary,
'Side issue' entirely - but are you sure you really WANT a 'catch all'
address?
Most of us gave them up for dead ages ago on the grounds that all they
received was tons of dictionary-attack spam.
Legit senders who perhaps mis-keyed a user's name are better served with an
immediate rejection message so they *know* the message did not go through
and address is flawed.
A catchall hides that - potentially 'forever'.
JM2CW,
Bill
Yes - want the ability.
Thanks
Gary
