On Mon March 2 2009 13:07:18 Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 12:56:33PM -0600, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> > Massive confusion, and looking back on the thread somewhat, I still
> > think we're lacking a good description of the problem.
> > On Mon March 2 2009 06:31:09 Leonardo Coelho wrote:
> > > I'm sorry but i don't get it, if i have this two lines:
> > > > local_transport = virtual
> > Don't do this. It probably doesn't work anyway. We have address
> > classes with proper *_transport defaults. The local_transport is of
> > course local(8), which is designed to work with Unix users and
> > traditional Unix system aliases(5).
> There is nothing wrong with "local_transport = virtual", if one wants
> virtual delivery with no aliases(5) processing or .forward processing
> for all local users, but often setting mailbox_transport is a better
> way to handle "local" (system-user) mail.
Thanks. I was thinking, as well, that the someone with such a need
might do better using relay_domains and set "relay_transport =
dovecot", for the domains defined in his virtual_mailbox_domains, since
later on the OP also changed virtual_transport. Then the mydestination
domains could be moved to virtual_mailbox_domains and mydestination
unset. This fits in with the principle of doing the least possible
pounding of square pegs into round holes.
Of course this is all academic; I doubt the OP really knows what he
Offlist mail to this address is discarded unless
"/dev/rob0" or "not-spam" is in Subject: header