On 2024-12-05 19:18, Jaroslaw Rafa via Postfix-users wrote:
> From what you have written I understand that in most (if not all) cases,
> each email has to be BCC-ed to "destination set", which consists of
> {B,X,Y,Z,S1+office,S2+office}. Only emails to S1 and S2 don't, they are
> BCC-ed only to B.
On 2024-12-05 17:02, Jaroslaw Rafa via Postfix-users wrote:
>
> Maybe it's just me, but I'm actually having trouble to understand WHAT
> exactly are you trying to achieve. Your description looks overcomplicated to
> me.
[Sorry, here's still complicated - there's "simplest example" below, but
I
Dnia 5.12.2024 o godz. 19:02:26 Tomasz Pala via Postfix-users pisze:
>
> O[office] -> B,X,Y,Z,S1,S2
> X[empl01] -> B,X,Y,Z,S1,S2
> Y[empl02] -> B,X,Y,Z,S1,S2
> Z[empl03] -> B,X,Y,Z,S1,S2
> S1[sup01] -> B,S1
> S2[sup02] -> B,S2
>
> where Sn are in a form of sn+off...@example.net.
>
> > Scenario
On 2024-12-05 17:37, Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users wrote:
>
> You can avoid recursion by using RHS values in the expansions of
> envelope recipient addresses that don't match any keys in the virtual
> alias table!
>
> Suppose each user (and the office mailbox) has two addresses:
>
> - Pu
On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 04:49:45PM +0100, Tomasz Pala via Postfix-users wrote:
> According to man 5 virtual recursion can be terminated by aliasing to
> itself, however office@ex.. is not a real account (the backup@ex.. is)
> and we'd like to avoid having one (unless necessary).
You can avoid rec
Dnia 5.12.2024 o godz. 16:49:45 Tomasz Pala via Postfix-users pisze:
> I'm not sure if it's not a XY-kind of problem, so I hope I've described
> all the relevant rules we're trying to follow (bearing in mind the real
> setup is much more complicated and seems to grow exponentially).
Maybe it's ju
