No mailboxes on these servers so no worries there.
Thanks for all your time and help.
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Wietse Venema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David DeFranco:
> > These are application generated messages and the format of the recipient
> > address is very specific. The user part of the address contains a
> specific
> > server and port the message needs to be sent to. Something like:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] smtp:[server1]:10025
> >
> > before I realized the regex/transport_maps restriction I had something
> like:
> >
> > /(server[0-9])\.([0-9]{5})\.([a-z]+)@process.company\.com/
> > smtp:[$1]:$2
> >
> > I'm not sure of the entire history behind this solution but apparently
> they
> > didn't want these servers to listen on 25. I don't know if different
> ports
> > handle mail differently, I can only assume so. This mapping is currently
> > done dynamically, and I'm in the process of finding out how many servers
> and
> > port combinations there are. My fear is that there are hundreds of
> > combinations ( which wouldn't be horrible to manage statically, just
> > inelegant ) and that new combinations are brought up ad hoc.
>
> Argh. Using regexp-based transport maps in a closed environment
> for this should be "safe" for some definition of "safe".
>
> Unfortunately there is no source code in place that allows you to
> toggle the one-bit flag that says "no regexp substitution allowed
> here". Sendmail has "don't blame Sendmail" options for such cases.
>
> Until then you may want to stick with Postfix 2.2. There is nothing
> bad with it except for the non-standard link(2) semantics of
> Solaris/Linux/Irix, resulting in privilege escalation if you have
> a world-writable system mailbox directory.
>
> Wietse
>
