On Saturday, March 14, 2009 at 20:15 CET,
list-u...@backenhoernchen.de wrote:
> So, when i trun around you statemant
>
> foo_bar_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/foo_backup,ldap:/etc/postfix/foo.cf
>
> the hash should alway be asked first and when there ist no matching
> entry postfix will ask ldap, which might have newer entries. So i can
> dump ldap less often to the hash file.
Yes, provided that entries are never removed. If they are, the hash
table may contain an old stale entry that's been removed from the LDAP
catalog.
> Using this I will certainly only reduce correct lookups. Since most
> lookups at least for mailboxes and aliases will fail the hash file
> because of SPAM attempts with random addresses, I probably do not
> reduce the queries that much. I just will "only" have the advantage
> of no 4xx denail when LDAP is down.
Yes, for addresses that exist. Addresses not listed in the hash table
will still cause LDAP to be consulted, and then you might get the
tempfail that you want to avoid.
[...]
> Do you have/know about any documentation on which order mappings are
> tried. I believe you but to be certain I'd like to read it in some
> dev-doc or so.
The lookup order is documented in postconf(5) for each main.cf
parameter (or in separate man pages referred from postconf(5)).
--
Magnus Bäck
mag...@dsek.lth.se
