On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Sahil Tandon <sahil+post...@tandon.net>wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-02-14 at 13:13:54 +0100, Miha Valencic wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Noel Jones <njo...@megan.vbhcs.org> > wrote: > > > HOLD acts at the message level, not the recipient level. > > > If one recipient of a multi-recipient message is put on HOLD, all > > > recipients of that message will be affected. > > > > I see. I believe the HOLD is better suited to our scenario as a > > temporary reject and this (HOLDing messages for all recipients if one > > matches) is acceptable. > > I do not understand your response; the HOLD action is not a temporary > reject. Anyway, my involvement earlier in the thread is for others who > might chance upon this chain in the archives, and prefer the alternative > (and IMHO more robust) approach. > > Hello, I looked up the other thread where it is suggested to use transport_maps file with entry like: u...@example.com retry:4.0.0 Mailbox being migrated I've tested it, and it works fine if I use the target address of virtual_alias_maps, but not if I list the address in the email. In our case this is to hold/suspend email until the mailbox is copied to a second system, where we continue to run mail on both mailbox systems. If I set up entries like: u...@server1.example.com retry:4.0.0 Mailbox being migrated That will keep it in the queue all right, but how to release it so it will deliver to u...@server2.example.com after mailboxes have been moved? I'd think we'd need a way to hold it prior to getting processed by the virtual mapping.
