On 3/3/2015 3:58 AM, Rudy Gevaert wrote: > On 03/03/15 10:00, Rudy Gevaert wrote: > >> Thanks for the possible alternatives. >> >> In this case I chose to go with the REDIRECT because we have an >> option >> to also do REJECT. (User can chose to redirect or reject through a >> webinterface). It was nice to do it in one lookup. >> >> I didn't see in the manual that REJECT is limited to one >> recipient. But >> I should still test it. > > It doesn't pose a problem. > > I've now already noticed we also have the relecoated_maps. It seems > I should be using instead of the a map with REJECT clause. > > Could someone tell me if there any other differences between using > u...@domain.com REJECT The user has moved > > and a relocated map with: > u...@domain.com The user has moved > > Thanks! > > Rudy
With either a REJECT or relocated_maps your result is the same, the recipient is rejected. The difference is what a real sender will sees on the reject message. The relocated_maps sends a "mailbox moved" extended status code that may provide better information to sender. The "REJECT" sends a general "policy violation" extended status code. Some desktop mail programs don't display the helpful text you supply, instead giving their own explanation of the extended status code, possibly in the local user's language. If it's more convenient to use an access table with REJECT, you can use "REJECT 5.1.6 The user has moved" to send the proper extended status code. -- Noel Jones
