On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 12:20:09AM -0700, Glenn Tenney via Postfix-users wrote:
> > transport: > > u...@domain.name error:5.1.1 purported to not exist > > > > > > Thank you very much. A question please… the above two “solutions” seem to > accomplish very similar tasks: to reject user@domain.example issuing an > error to the sender… but… Yes, quite similar, though not completely identical. > It would seem that the 2nd solution using transport_maps is simpler to > implement, Only if you don't already have any access(5) checks. Either way, you add an entry to a table. The transport(5) approach makes the recipient *undeliverable* even for locally submitted mail, and even after alias expansion, but either way only the *verabatim* recipient address is rejected after SMTP "RCPT TO". > but there may be a variety of reasons to choose one solution > over the other. Mostly a matter of taste, the recipient restrictions are the more common approach, but the transport(5) mapping to "error" is also fine. > Is there some relatively straightforward criteria to consider which of > your two “solutions” is better or more efficient? Neither is noticeably more "efficient", either way a cheap table lookup. > It’s clear that there are going to be multiple ways to accomplish the > same task. Yes, many ways, and overlap with per-address class valid recipient tables, ... (local_recipient_maps, virtual_mailbox_maps, relay_recipient_maps). Which is why just cargo-cult is difficult to specify without the full picture of your entire setup, but that's too much work to take in unless you hire a paid consultant. In your place, I'd have stuck with Sendmail on FreeBSD, while you're learning to use Postfix on some toy machines, reading docs more deeply, ... Another option is a turnkey solution, such as: https://mailinabox.email -- Viktor. _______________________________________________ Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
