On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 11:29:51AM +0700, Olivier wrote:
> recipient_canonical_maps = ldap:$config_directory/ldap_user_uncanonical,
> ldap:$config_directory/ldap_deleted_uncanonical
> sender_canonical_maps = ldap:$config_directory/ldap_canonical
The most likely problem table is "sender_canonical_maps". By the way I
strongly don't recommend using different settings in the sender and
recipient canonical mappings, who's a header sender and who's a header
recipient is in the eye of the beholder (consider what happens in
replies). Making these different has poor semantics.
> I have several rewrittings, all using LDAP, for example:
>
> more ldap_canonical
>
> # Rewrite user into firstname.lastname
> server_host= ldaps://ldap.cs.ait.ac.th/
> search_base= ou=People,ou=csim,dc=cs,dc=ait,dc=ac,dc=th
> query_filter = (&(mail=%s)(csimAccountPermission=mail))
> result_attribute= csimFullName
> scope= one
> version= 3
This uses "%s" (full address with domain), so should touch remote
addresses. You could however configure a list of domains:
domain = foo.example, bar.example, ...
which are the only ones to look up in LDAP. On the other hand,
what is this table doing, "csimFullName" does not sound like
a mail address. Are you trying to include/update display names
in the canonical table??? That can't work.
> Jan 17 10:18:06 mail postfix/cleanup[32377]: warning: 873DF89283:
> multi-valued sender_canonical_maps entry for [email protected]
Something is not right here, that address should presumably not be
listed in your
> The rewritting is occuring because in the LDAP entry for user
> [email protected], there is the value olivier2553@gmail
> defined as an forwarding alias in the attribute mail (attribute used in
> the canonical rule above).
Your LDAP schema/data is broken. The "mail" attribute needs:
- To be single-valued
- To be the primary address of the user
- MUST NOT be used for forwarding addresses, use a different
attribute for that.
> I have to dig in deeper and understand how to limit the rewritting of
> the sender to outgoing messages.
Your LDAP schema is a mess, you need to solve the problem at a different
layer. See some of the examples in LDAP_README.
--
Viktor.
