Wietse Venema:
> Ralf Hauser:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Messages with a certain content type should be bcc'd to an additional
> > address for my use-case at hand.
>
> That is currently not built into Postfix, but it could be done with
> a Milter: in the header and body event handlers look at the content,
> and in the end-of-message handler invoke the "add recipient" action.
> But I agree that having to do that would suck.
>
> (The reason Milters can add BCC recipients but header/body_checks
> can't: Milter support was added later, and I have not found the
> make the BCC functionality available in header/body_checks).
I'm considering a design for BCC support in header/body_checks
that works in two stages:
- The first stage happens while an email message is received: build
a list of recipients in header/body_checks BCC actions, suppressing
duplicates on-the-fly.
- The second stage happens after the complete message and envelope
are stored: add the BCC recipients to the queue file.
The header/body_checks syntax would look like this:
/pattern/ BCC u...@example.com
/pattern/ BCC u...@example.com NOTIFY=none ORCPT=u...@example.net
(for consistency, BCC recipients with NOTIFY and ORCPT attributes
should also be supported in access maps, sender_bcc_maps,
recipient_bcc_maps, and always_bcc).
Wietse
> > I guess I could do this in two rounds:
> > 1) with header_checks relay to itself on a different port (FILTER)
> > 2) on that secondary smtpd, I could use the
> > http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#recipient_bcc_maps
>
> That would also work (assuming you are not already using an after-queue
> filter for other purposes).
>
> > but there it says: "automatic BCC recipients are produced only for
> > new mail. To avoid mailer loops, automatic BCC recipients are not
> > generated after Postfix forwards mail internally"
>
> This is not a problem: you are sending mail out via SMTP and then
> receiving it via SMTP. That is not "internal" forwarding.
>
> > P.S.: There appears to be a typo in "whitespace of comma" - I guess
> > this should be "or"
>
> And thanks to cut and paste, this mistake happens 24 times in the
> same file. Thanks for noticing that.
>
> > P.P.S.: It would be useful to show a sample line of
> > /etc/postfix/recipient_bcc
>
> The example in the text uses
>
> recipient_bcc_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/recipient_bcc
>
> But I don't know if hash is the common use case.
>
> Wietse
>
