Andi Raicu wrote, at 02/20/2009 04:47 AM: > I don't want to be in the situation where I didn't create an account to > the new server and emails that were supposed to be recieved are now, > well, kind of lost; so I need a catch-all email.
Anyone who decides to distribute an email address without ensuring it works deserves to lose mail. You need to focus on a policy for provisioning new email addresses and a system to support it. If you try to use catch-alls for this perceived need, you will certainly fail. > But there is a problem! If I do that, then ANY email sent to company.com > <http://company.com>, even though it has a valid user in > virtual_mailbox_maps, will go to lostnfo...@company.com > <mailto:lostnfo...@company.com>! Whatever you do, do you really want to be responsible for searching through the lostnfound account because some pinhead *thinks* it *might* contain an important message to some ambiguous nonexistent address? Do you really want to burden someone else with this task? Catch-alls are almost always filled to the brim with spam, viruses and phishing exploits. Do you want to risk any of these being forwarded by mistake? Catch-alls are also a notorious black hole for messages with typos in the recipient address, so you'll have to regularly check the account for those. It's far better for the message to be rejected so the sender is aware of the typo and has an opportunity to resend the message correctly. Anything you do to try to make this work will most likely result in an unmaintainable mess. Demand that your users only use real addresses that have been properly assigned to them.
