Quantcast

Recipient Validation Question

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Recipient Validation Question

Corey Chandler
Howdy.

On my gateway machine I have generic set to rewrite addresses from
@server.domain.com to @domain.com, after which point transport redirects
those messages to server.domain.com.

Unfortunately, when email arrives from other internal sources to
@server.domain.com, my gateway rejects them, as it's not correlating the
[hidden email] with [hidden email].

Is there a way to make this work without having to have duplicate
entries (one for user@domain, one for [hidden email]) in
relay_recipients for validation?  I do realize that generic won't work
until after a message is accepted, but was hoping I may have overlooked
another way to do this...


--
Jay Chandler / KB1JWQ
Living Legend / Systems Exorcist
Today's Excuse: Daemons loose in system
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Recipient Validation Question

Noel Jones-2
Jay Chandler wrote:

> Howdy.
>
> On my gateway machine I have generic set to rewrite addresses from
> @server.domain.com to @domain.com, after which point transport redirects
> those messages to server.domain.com.
>
> Unfortunately, when email arrives from other internal sources to
> @server.domain.com, my gateway rejects them, as it's not correlating the
> [hidden email] with [hidden email].
>
> Is there a way to make this work without having to have duplicate
> entries (one for user@domain, one for [hidden email]) in
> relay_recipients for validation?  I do realize that generic won't work
> until after a message is accepted, but was hoping I may have overlooked
> another way to do this...
>
>

If you're using local indexed files (hash, dbm, cdb, etc.),
use multiple entries.  Use sed/perl/awk/whatever to generate
the alternate entires automatically; let the computer do the
work.  The extra entries in the table will make no measurable
difference in lookup speed.  You can script this under the
control of a Makefile, something like:
http://www.postfix.org/DATABASE_README.html#safe_db

If you are using *sql lookup tables, you can configure your
query to look for either name form (examples in the archives).

An alternative is to use "reject_unverified_recipient"
http://www.postfix.org/ADDRESS_VERIFICATION_README.html#recipient

--
Noel Jones
Loading...