On Saturday, March 14, 2009 at 17:08 CET,
list-u...@backenhoernchen.de wrote:
> ----- "mouss" <mo...@ml.netoyen.net> schrieb:
>
> > there's no backup. you have the choice between:
> >
> > - accepting temp failures if the backend is down
> > - using a backedn that doesn't get down (hash, cdb, ...)
>
> ok, i am all for "by the book" but postfix has to have some kind
> of order. as in the other answer to my question, a behavior like
> described (if one of the map fails _caused by a network error_ and
> not the "there is no such domain in this map") is hopefully not
> really implemented. but if so i'd rather just use local files.
Lookup tables are tried in the order specified in the configuration,
but if any of the tables returns a result OR FAILS, the traversal is
terminated and that result is returned to the client. That is, given
the configuration
foo_bar_maps = ldap:/etc/postfix/foo.cf, hash:/etc/postfix/foo_backup
the hash table WILL be consulted undr these circumstances:
* The string being looked up isn't found in the LDAP table.
The hash table WILL NOT be consulted under these circumstances:
* The LDAP lookup fails.
* The LDAP lookup returns OK, REJECT, an email address or whatever.
> > Multiple maps support is not meant for fail-over of one map. it's
> > like if they were concatenanted: if no match is found, move to the
> > next map.
>
> Using them as fail-over would really be nice to do and i think shoult
> work.
Okay, but why? If the failover table ISN'T up to date it may provide
bad results if it's ever used. If the failover table IS up to date,
why not use it all the time?
[...]
--
Magnus Bäck
mag...@dsek.lth.se
