Re: Losing address extension in destination of virtual map

2014-04-27 Thread Richard Damon
On 4/27/14, 9:36 AM, Matt Holgate wrote: > > Thanks Wietse! Actually, 'theirdomain.com' was a placeholder (I wanted > to avoid exposing their real domain to mailing list and thus making it > a target of spam). The domain they are using is real :) > > Matt. As a point of information, there is a set

Re: Losing address extension in destination of virtual map

2014-04-27 Thread Matt Holgate
On 27/04/2014 14:18, Wietse Venema wrote: This looks like the "fantasy domain" example in http://www.postfix.org/SOHO_README.html#fantasy You'd do something like: /etc/postfix/main.cf: smtp_generic_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/generic /etc/postfix/generic: dougandmari...@theirdomain.com

Re: Losing address extension in destination of virtual map

2014-04-27 Thread Wietse Venema
Matt Holgate: > Indeed - sorry, I didn't explain myself very well! > > What I'm trying to achieve is to forward unextended addresses in my > parent's domain to extended addresses at Gmail. > > My parents share a common gmail account, and use Gmail filters to sort > 'private' messages sent to th

Re: Losing address extension in destination of virtual map

2014-04-27 Thread Wietse Venema
Matt Holgate: > It seemed like the catchall address was getting triggered for e.g. > d...@theirdomain.com. I'm guessing I need to put the catchall rule at > the top? As documented in the virtual(5) manpage, virtual alias lookups are recursive (the result of lookup is subject to alias lookup). Re

Re: Losing address extension in destination of virtual map

2014-04-27 Thread Matt Holgate
On 27/04/2014 13:35, Matt Holgate wrote: What I'm trying to achieve is to forward unextended addresses in my parent's domain to extended addresses at Gmail. D'oh, sorry! I just realised I had a catchall address setup as well, which was causing the problem (i.e. it was nothing to do with addre

Re: Losing address extension in destination of virtual map

2014-04-27 Thread Matt Holgate
On 27/04/2014 13:21, Wietse Venema wrote: Matt Holgate: Is there any way of avoiding this? I see there is a 'propagate_unmatched_extensions' parameter, but I'd have thought this would have no effect as there is no extension in the original address. No that is backwards. It propagates the exte

Re: Losing address extension in destination of virtual map

2014-04-27 Thread Wietse Venema
Matt Holgate: > Is there any way of avoiding this? I see there is a > 'propagate_unmatched_extensions' parameter, but I'd have thought this > would have no effect as there is no extension in the original address. No that is backwards. It propagates the extension that exists in the original addre