Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 01:52:18AM +0800, Feizhou wrote:
Me neither. I have been running e-mail server for so long, that I really don't care about these "blackbox" solutions. They are more trouble than they are worth.
Except when they are well done. vpopmail, vmailmgr...don't exim also have something written for it to manage virtual mailboxes?
Exim itself does that.
And vpopmail is not a blackbox solution :)
Ah, i wondered what you meant.
Actually, .forward provides intra-MTA routing instructions, not delivery instructions :)
Please stop muddling things for newbies. A line with a pipe in the .forward file means deliver mail to program through a pipe. A line with a path means deliver a copy to this mailbox and a line with an email address means forward a copy to the email address.
You are mixing up 'mailertables' on sendmail, 'transports' on postfix and 'smtproutes' on qmail with .forward/.qmail local delivery instruction files.
No, I'm not. .forward/.qmail will provide instructions for the MTA. They don't do delivery, so they are not a "local delivery system".
Hmm...ok. dot-whatever != local delivery agent. I guess I should say it boils down to what qmail-local and its dot-qmail mechanism does compared with the pairing of sendmail's local mailer and its dot-forward mechanism and postfix's local (that is what its LDA is called) support of sendmail's dot-forward.
I agree "nothing to do" was a little strong worded, since everything has to do with local delivery. That is, after all, what the whole e-mail system is about.
-_-. "intra-MTA routing" has nothing to do with local delivery...
Depend on the final routing target, which can be local delivery.
=D. Got me there. The only exception being qmail...once a message is queued, its routing has been set whereas you can still change that if it were postfix, sendmail and I guess exim.