On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 07:44:46PM +0000, MV wrote:
> > sender dependent maps would actually largely ignore the sender,
>
> But how to I define the sender (map), if that's not asking too much,
> could you please provide me with an example file?
It is a program! Not a fixed mapping. It receives a sender address,
and replies (with a possibly cached per-sender) answer which is
computed on a mostly-round-robin basis.
> > and just provide a round-robin response. The important part is
> > that this mechanism returns a "default_transport" which never
> > overrides local or other more specific transport information.
> > ...
> > ... can help avoid unnecessarily splitting of
> > the envelope for multi-recipient mail. You should try to send all
>
> And therefore would cut the overhead I currently have, right?
Don't know what overhead you have in mind. Transport lookups happen
in many places in Postfix. Your transport switch needs to be fast,
(no verbose logging, ...) the rest is irrelevant.
> > the cache might defeat the load-balancing you want.
>
> yep!
Or it might not. Do you send a flood of separate messages each
from the same sender? If not the cache will help with multi-recipient
mail. If all mail is single-recipient, you don't need a cache.
--
Viktor.
