Dear Postfix-Users,
I’m using sender_canonical_maps to ensure that my envelope addresses comply
with SPF policies and also allow for a valid bounce address in the event of
non-delivery.
My gateway mail servers are configured using sender_canonical_maps with
"sender_canonical_classes = envelope_sender” and this works as expected for
internet mail submission (i.e. smtpd:25), but not for local submission on the
gateway mail server.
The problem I am having is that any mail that is submitted locally on the
gateway mail servers (Ubuntu, /usr/bin/mail - tested all 3 packages providing
/usr/bin/mail) behaves as if sender_canonical_classes is not configured — i.e.
default configuration behaviour of “sender_canonical_classes = envelope_sender,
header_sender” — as both the envelope and header addresses are being rewritten.
I have also tested with canonical_maps and canonical_classes configured
appropriately the same behaviour is observed.
My configuration reads as follows (canonical_classes added as a precaution):
# /etc/postfix/main.cf (excerpt)
canonical_classes = envelope_sender
sender_canonical_classes = envelope_sender
sender_canonical_maps = regexp:/etc/postfix/sender_canonical.regexp
The regexp canonical map rules:
# /etc/postfix/sender_canonical.regexp (excerpt)
# rewrite all addresses to any variant of (*.|)mydomain.com(|.*) to
realuser+user%internal_f...@mydomain.com
/^(.*)@(.+\.mydomain\.com(\.[^\.]*)?)$/ realuser+${1}%${2}@mydomain.com
At the moment I have an extra custom entry in each gateway mail host excluding
it from the rewrite - rewriting it as it is received - which I’d rather avoid.
# /etc/postfix/sender_canonical.regexp
# exception required due to {{sender,recipient}_}canonical_classes not being
honoured by local delivery transport
/^(.*)@(this\.host\.mydomain\.com)$/ ${1}@${2}
I have read all of the documentation in question so I’m not sure if I’ve found
a bug or if I just have misunderstood the message processing / routing within
Postfix relating to address rewriting.
I’m hoping someone has more insight into the issue I’m seeing or to educate me
in the event I have just misunderstood something.
cheers,
Valdemar
