Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> On 09/23/2010 11:03 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Alexander 'Leo' Bergolth:
> >> OK, now I know why my messages are not requeued.
> >>
> >> First of all: The owner- alias IS REALLY set up correctly. :-)
> >>
> >> But if members of the list are aliases themselves, requeuing via cleanup
> >> won't work for them. Unfortunately, this is currently the case for my
> >> recipients.
> >
> > I mentioned before that you need an owner- alias for the "final"
> > alias when your aliases are nested.
>
> (Some of) the list _members_ are themselves represented as aliases. So
> the final alias that directly represents the list has the owner- alias.
> It isn't possible and it won't make any sense to add an owner- alias for
> every listmember.
>
> It's like the following aliases file:
> testlist: member1, member2
> owner-testlist: root
> member1: leo
> member2: testleo
A mailing list that expands into a bunch of single-member aliases.
That would explain why this limitation hasn't been a problem in
the past 12 years.
> You may argue that you already told me that in this case, the owner-
> alias isn't the final alias and thus it won't work.
>
> But that's bad. It should.
>
> The other misfeature that I'd like to point out again is the behavior of
> been_here() when the hash table is full.
The alternatives to a limited-size hash are a) run out of memory and
try to deliver mail repeatedly until it is too old or b) bounce
the excess recipients, neither of which wins a prize for beauty.
More sensibly, it seems safe to skip the RESET_OWNER_ATTR() operation.
That code is a remnant of a very early attempt to attribute bounces
very accurately, and may be creating more problems than it solves.
Wietse
