244211Re: trivial-rewrite regular expression substitution
- Oct 1, 2008These are application generated messages and the format of the recipient address is very specific. The user part of the address contains a specific server and port the message needs to be sent to. Something like:
before I realized the regex/transport_maps restriction I had something like:
I'm not sure of the entire history behind this solution but apparently they didn't want these servers to listen on 25. I don't know if different ports handle mail differently, I can only assume so. This mapping is currently done dynamically, and I'm in the process of finding out how many servers and port combinations there are. My fear is that there are hundreds of combinations ( which wouldn't be horrible to manage statically, just inelegant ) and that new combinations are brought up ad hoc.
Victor, thanks for the solution, that's good stuff. I should have told you about the port requirement sooner. I think it would be a lot simpler to use regexp matching:/server1\.10025\.[a-z]+@process.company.com/ smtp:[server1]:10025
etc. I would still prefer a programmatic way to do this so the messaging team doesn't have to be involved every time the application team adds a server or changes a port.
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 2:35 PM, Wietse Venema <wietse@...> wrote:
Wietse:> > Instead of using (regexp) to grab the nexthop from the recipientDavid DeFranco:
> > localpart or domain part, specify the string explicitly.
> > /......(regexp)....../ ......$1......
> > /......whatever....../ ......whatever......
> > Repeat this for each such domain.
> Thanks for the answers.How many entries would a map have, and why would the map have to
> This is an internal mail server for system generated mail, and I'm
> re-writing the address before determining the transport so there's sanity
> checking already in place. I would never consider this kind of setup on a
> user/internet relay server. Heck, I wouldn't consider this solution in the
> first place, but it's legacy ( currently on sendmailx ) and I have to make
> it work. I wanted to avoid using an explicit map file because it could be
> complex and has to be updated manually.
> Is there another way to programmatically determine the next-hop?
Is the problem that recipients have their real domain name
embedded in the address local-part? If that is the case
there may be better solutions than using a transport map.
I am trying to look for alternatives to your preferred solution,
and that requires that I know more about the problem.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>