... As documented under sender_dependent_default_transport_maps, This information is overruled with the transport(5) table . That is why my example usedMessage 1 of 10 , Jul 23View SourceFlorin Andrei:
> I apologize for not being more specific at the beginning. I appreciateAs documented under sender_dependent_default_transport_maps,
> the fact that support is offered here freely for everyone, it's a great
> I am getting the impression that it's not possible to make routing
> decisions based on sender *before* making decisions based on recipient.
> AFAICT, the transport table will override my
> sender_dependent_default_transport_maps stuff no matter what.
"This information is overruled with the transport(5) table".
That is why my example used sender_dependent_default_transport_maps
to bounce external mail from users who aren't permitted to send to
non-local destinations, and used transport_maps to override the
error: destination for local domains so that they would not bounce.
I spent some 15 minutes researching that solution based on the then
current version of your problem description, and that is all the
time that I will put into this thread.
I solved my routing problem... by switching to Exim. :) Arbitrary routing decisions can be implemented by simply daisy-chaining routers in a config file. It sMessage 1 of 10 , Jul 25View SourceI solved my routing problem... by switching to Exim. :)
Arbitrary routing decisions can be implemented by simply daisy-chaining
routers in a config file. It's actually surprising how easy it is to
read the whole logic at once just by glancing at one file. Almost like
Their users list was also very helpful, and the overall tone of the
discussion was friendly and non-dismissive towards this complete Exim
newbie. That was a pretty stark contrast.
I've been using Postfix for over a decade now, and I thought I could do
anything with it (provided that enough research and tests are
performed), but I was amazed how much easier it was to solve a complex
problem like this with Exim.