On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 11:28:00AM -0400, [email protected] wrote: > Am I using the wrong tool for creating a catchall to accept mail for > addresses that are not specifically defined? This setup does not > accept mail for local linux users, all valid email addresses are > defined in virtual_mailbox_maps.
No, though you should consider *not* implementing a catchall, these are generally a bad idea. > If this is the best way to setup a catchall, I have a followup > question; Using [email protected] -> [email protected] to break > recursion, if i have defined 100 virtual users, ie [email protected] > [email protected] [email protected] etc, does that mean I need to add > 100 entries ([email protected] -> [email protected], etc) to the > virtual_alias_maps table if i want to use a @example.com -> > [email protected]? Yes, and generating these is easily automated. > Is there any other way to switch off recursion behavior at a global > level? No. > virtual_alias_recursion_limit = 1 Will this give me the behavior I am > looking for or will give give me unforeseen consequences? No, it will cause all mail delivery to non-catch-all users to fail: if (count >= var_virt_recur_limit) { msg_warn("%s: unreasonable %s map nesting for %s -- " "message not accepted, try again later", state->queue_id, maps->title, addr); state->errs |= CLEANUP_STAT_DEFER; UPDATE(state->reason, "4.6.0 Alias expansion error"); UNEXPAND(argv, addr); RETURN(argv); } -- Viktor.
