Thank you very much for that. It is an interesting possibility and
deserves consideration.
I wonder; if it was a destination thing, shouldn't the document have
used the term "destination name"? As soon as one uses the term "domain"
in the context of networking, that comes with standard terminology and
meaning. Doesn't trying to merge that into something else damage the
English language and the fundamental meanings we are trying to keep
standardized?
Thanks again.
On 1/1/19 6:31 PM, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
On 2019-01-01 Me wrote:
In the document athttp://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
