On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 04:25:37PM -0700, Hirayama, Pat wrote:
> So, the problem is with the recursion, and in fact, if it were just
> an alias with 3000+ addresses in a flat file, that will be handled
> without difficulty?
Not exactly, the problem is that when expanding the list, Postfix
encounters local users, some of whom also have aliases, .forward
files, ... and all of this needs to happen in a single processing
step for compatibility with Sendmail aliases(5) semantics.
It is not the flatness of the expansion but the fact that users
have .forward files, mailboxes, ... which means that alias expansion
generates not just new addresses for a secondary queue-file, but also
parallel deliveries to mailboxes and pipes, ... Loops certainly don't
help either.
Faced with all this complexity, I redesign the namespace to make the
problem cases impossible.
- All "real" email addresses are non-local
- Any local addresses arise only from virtual(5) expansion of
real addresses to internal local addresses of corresponding
local mailboxes
- Any local mailbox that is an alias expands to a set of
non-local real addresses, the RHS of a local alias is never
(directly) another local alias.
This eliminates support for recursive local aliases, but also
eliminates all the associated problems.
--
Viktor.
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.
To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit
http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below:
<mailto:majord...@postfix.org?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users>
If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not
send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put
"It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.
