* Victor Duchovni <postfix-users@postfix.org>: ...
> > Sending them off to a LMTP server is a transport map job: > > > > recipi...@example.com lmtp:localhost > > The correct syntax (if the default port is OK) is: > > recipi...@example.com lmtp:inet:localhost Maybe its just me, but I had not looked for this notation in lmtp(8), but in transport(8), where I was looking for transport examples. May I suggest an example of this is added to transport(5)? > Why per-recipient transport lookups? Often better to rewrite to a domain > where the entire domain is handled by lmtp(8). Agreed. In my case I am after a mixed domain - some mails go to typical mailboxes and some will be sent of to a LMTP server. > > But what do I do to tell Postfix recipi...@example.com is a valid recipient? > > Use virtual_mailbox_maps. > > > Can I reuse my transport map and add it to local_recipient_maps, > > virtual_alias_maps or virtual_mailbox_maps as required? > > Don't add $transport_maps to virtual_mailbox_maps, but if per-recipient > transport entries are the right solution, use a common table that you > add to both: > > lmtp_user_transport_maps = <maptype>:<mapname> > transport_maps = ... $lmtp_user_transport_maps > virtual_mailbox_maps = ... $lmtp_user_transport_maps That's what I had had on my mind. Thanks. > Provided the same users will never reach virtual(8), the fact that > the RHS is transport-valued rather than mailbox-path-valued is not > a problem. That's exactly what I had hoped to hear. p...@rick -- The Book of Postfix <http://www.postfix-book.com> saslfinger (debugging SMTP AUTH): <http://postfix.state-of-mind.de/patrick.koetter/saslfinger/>
