Re: [exim] Exim Consolidating users

Top Page
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Author: W B Hacker
Date:  
To: exim users
Subject: Re: [exim] Exim Consolidating users
Jonathan Gilpin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If a mailbox exists of postmaster@??? with a catchall alias of *@ domain to that mailbox.
>
> If a message is sent to several users@??? then Exim only delivers one message to the Mailbox with multiple addresses in the Delivered-To or other headers..
>
> I want to stop this behaviour so that Exim does not deliver one message but a message to each of the recipients.
>
> Can this be done?
>
>
> Jonathan Gilpin
> Fluent Ltd
> www.fluent.ltd.uk
>
>
>
>



For 'administrative' purposes, the postmaster@ address is commonly expanded
within the /etc/aliases file (or equivalent). This can work for an abitrarily
long list of 'real' recipients.

But that *ordinarily leads* to perhaps one to half a dozen actual system admins,
one or more of whom are expected to [be able] to take some [corrective] action
with alacrity or communiate with another sysadmin about a common issue.
This - plus insuring that postmaster@ (optionally abuse@, hostmaster@,
webmaster@) are protected but reachable by 'real folks' should be all you need.

Ex: Insisting that postmaster@ is a sole addressee of an incoming message can
reduce spam on this address.

Operating a *general* catch-all OTOH, whether on postmaster@ or *@, is generally
a Very Bad Idea, as it opens the door to a spam/malware road *very* well-traveled.

Better, IMNSHO, to expect legitimate correspondents to 'get it right' w/r the
spelling of a recipient's address - a no-brainer when hitting an MUA's 'Reply'
button anyway - and strictly enforce verification so as to accpet traffic ONLY
for legitimate recipients.

That should not be hard even when your 'customers' are adding and deleting their
own mail addresses without your involvement. If Exim can 'see' the mailstore,
table, file, or DB entry for one of these users, it can vet their existence. If
it cannot, it won't be able to deliver specifically to them anyway, so it SHOULD
reject right up front.

Some reading up on all this might serve you well...

HTH,

Bill Hacker