On 2019-01-01 Me wrote: > In the document at http://www.postfix.org/VIRTUAL_README.html, it uses > the word "canonical" but it fails to give a definition. I have always > understood it to mean something that is in line with the standard or > is orthodox. When it comes to domain names, the standard is set by > IANA and there is only one form. > > However, the document goes on the differentiate between the > "canonical" and so-called "hosted" domains. Sadly it fails to realize > that these must also be "canonical". > > To make it even worse, it fails to explain that the host computer does > not have to have a domain, or at least documentation never proves that > it does. Further, it goes on to bring in virtual and alias, just to > confuse the issue even more. > > So why are any domains any different than any others?
I'm not sure if this answers your question, but from my understanding the README is using the term "domain" in the sense of mail routing destinations and how/where they are configured rather than the DNS sense of the word. Please double-check the "Canonical versus hosted versus other domains" section of the document: http://www.postfix.org/VIRTUAL_README.html#canonical Regards Ansgar Wiechers -- "Abstractions save us time working, but they don't save us time learning." --Joel Spolsky
