[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

RE: pop3 server w/ virtual domains



Mario,

I haven't looked at courier-imap, but i should support multiple domains.  In
fact, any pop3 server should be oblivious to the domain.  It simply allows
user access to their email account.  This is independent of the domain.  At
least as far as I know ...

paul


--
Paul McHale
   Work:   937-253-7610          Double E Solutions
   Mobile: 937-371-2828          4912 Effingham
   Fax:    413-215-3232          Dayton, Ohio 45431
--

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mario Olimpio de Menezes [mailto:mario@curiango.ipen.br]
> Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 11:14 AM
> To: Paul McHale
> Cc: Debian User List
> Subject: RE: pop3 server w/ virtual domains
>
>
> On Fri, 12 May 2000, Paul McHale wrote:
>
> > Mario,
> >
> > > 	When using exim + virtual domains, is it possible to have a pop3
> > > server also with virtual domains?
> >
> > All mail for that user will go to the same mail box regardless of what
> > domain it is sent to.  Their might be another way of doing this
> so you can
> > support smith@domain1.com and smith@domain2.com.  Smith being
> two separate
> > users.  This would probably use aliases of some type.  I can't
> tell by your
> > question which way you meant this.  If it is they same person with two
> > different domain emails (my case) here is what I did in exim.conf:
>
> yes, this is what I meant: 2 users with the same name but different
> domains (smith@domain1.com and smith@domain2.com).
>
> I took a look in courier-imap (that support pop3 as well), and I think
> that it can do virtual domains.
>
>
> thanks for you answer,
>
> []s,
> Mario O.de Menezes            "Many are the plans in a man's heart, but
>     IPEN-CNEN/SP                 is the Lord's purpose that prevails"
> http://curiango.ipen.br/~mario                 Prov. 19.21
>                    http://www.revistalinux.com.br
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe?  mail -s unsubscribe
> debian-user-request@lists.debian.org < /dev/null
>



Reply to: