Erick Calder:
> so I tried this:
>
> /^([^._\/-]*)[._\/-](.*)@arix\.com$/ ${1}+$...@arix.com
Unfortunately, this causes Postfix to accept mail for non-existent
recipients (the virtual alias matches a bogus of username portion,
and Postfix discovers only upon delivery that the address is no
good).
To work around that, you'd need to specify explicit usernames in
the pattern, or run a policy daemon that queries a table with
known-good usernames after lopping off the extensions, and that
rejects the bogus ones.
> which seemed to work fine, except for the underscores. thinking that
> they might be meaningful to the set declaration I tried:
>
> /^e_j...@arix.com$/ e...@arix.com
>
> which also failed... so I'm mystified but I'm happy that now e/j...@arix.com
> , e.j...@arix.com and e-j...@arix.com all land in my box... curiously
> the address isn't actually rewritten (so I actually see the character
> used). also e...@arix.com and e+j...@arix.com still work.
>
> any light on the underscore would be cool.
Try using a hexdump tool, and see if you entered a non-ASCII code.
Wietse
