On Thu, 11 May 2017 12:30:11 -0400 Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
> > On May 11, 2017, at 11:55 AM, Andrew Beverley
> > wrote:
> >
> > I've tried setting relay_domains and
> > relay_recipient_maps accordingly, but what I failed to mention in my
> > first email is that the domain in question is a virtu
> On May 11, 2017, at 11:55 AM, Andrew Beverley wrote:
>
> I've tried setting relay_domains and
> relay_recipient_maps accordingly, but what I failed to mention in my
> first email is that the domain in question is a virtual domain. As
> such, emails that I would like forwarded (in relay_domains
On Wed, 10 May 2017 19:26:48 -0400 (EDT) Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Normally I would avoid a catch-all for the obvious reasons, but
> > we're undertaking a migration, and for a short period we want to
> > have the Postfix server relay to another MX server any messages
> > that it has no specific acti
Andrew Beverley:
> Normally I would avoid a catch-all for the obvious reasons, but we're
> undertaking a migration, and for a short period we want to have the
> Postfix server relay to another MX server any messages that it has no
> specific action for (and that it would otherwise normally reject).
Dear all,
Is there a way that I can specify that a transport rule should only be
carried out as a "catch all" for email addresses that are not otherwise
delivered locally?
Normally I would avoid a catch-all for the obvious reasons, but we're
undertaking a migration, and for a short period we want
