On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 02:45:10PM -0400, Phil Howard wrote:
> > This is all documented Phil, please read more carefully, and if not sure
> > what something means, test your understanding in a test configuration that
> > does not handle live mail traffic.
>
> Fortunately I have that test machine, now. I've now tried both ways
> with a limited set of addresses hand coded (not the full set of data).
> It works exactly the same either way. I'm working on recoding the
> script that generates the maps. To split the domains between these
> two maps, it has to look at whether there are real mailboxes for a
> domain or not. Basically, the mailbox data will dictate what goes in
> virtual_mailbox_domains. But for virtual_alias_domains, derived from
> the forwarding data, it has to exclude the domains that have
> mailboxes.
I am reluctant to recommend an approach where domains automatically
morph between virtual mailbox domains and virtual alias domains
based on transient surveys for the presence of non-forwarded mailboxes.
The distinction between the two address classes should be a *design*
decision, that is made or changed by intent rather than circumstance.
If you don't know in advance whether a domain may or may not host
mailboxes, then assume it will, and virtual mailbox domains for
all domains. There is nothing wrong with a virtual mailbox domain,
that has no mailboxes "yet", so long as the possibility to have them
later is a requirement.
You are working too hard if you are trying to "optimize" mailbox
domains to alias domains when there are not yet any mailboxes.
--
Viktor.
