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

Re: sendmail virtusers question



hi ya

do yoou mean virtusers or virtusertable
( big difference

c ya
alvin

On Sat, 29 Sep 2001, Robert Waldner wrote:

> 
> >On Sat, 29 Sep 2001, Robert Waldner wrote:
> >> Following situation:
> >> 
> >> I have a domain where some specific addresses (someone@domain.tld) 
> >>  should be accepted and then be forwarded to another address 
> >>  (someone@otherdomain.tld).
> >> 
> >> So I thought that the perfect job for the virtusertable, did some 
> >>  entries of the form
> >> someone@domain.tld:			someone@otherdomain.tld
> >>  rebuilt the database, but no, that doesn't work.
> >> 
> >> "Local configuration error. MX list points back to me". The only MX is 
> >>  for the box in question, of course. Ok, put domain.tld in 
> >>  local-host-names. No, doesn't work, either:
> >> 
> >> Sep 29 13:14:15 ka sendmail[905]: NAA00903: to=<someone@domain.tld>,
> >>  delay=00:00:15, xdelay=00:00:00, mailer=cyrus, stat=User unknown
> >> 
> >> The virtusertable doesn't seem to get read when the domain is 
> >>  local-host-names...
> >> 
> >> Now, before I start doing something really ugly involving local users 
> >>  and .forwards, any hints for me? I'm usually quite able to help myself 
> >>  wrt sendmail but there must be some knot in my brain here.
> 
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2001 04:47:36 PDT, Alvin Oga writes:
> >did you do a make ( to reuild the db ) in /etc/mail ??
> 
> makemap hash virtusers<virtusers
> 
> >did you restart sendmail afterward ??
> 
> Not after the changes to the virtusers-db (no need to), but after 
>  adding the new domain to local-host-names (which is not a db), yes, of 
>  course.
> 
> >dont use ~/user/.forward file... pain-in-the-rump in the long run
> 
> Yes, that's why I want to avoid it, expecially since I've set up cyrus 
>  to not being dependant on local users.
> 
> I could set something up via aliases I think, but then that would be valid 
>  for all the domains my mailhub is serving, and there would be a *lot* 
>  of clashes.
> 
> cheers,
> &rw
> -- 
> -- NT is 'more secure' in so far as, if your average cracker screws
> -- around with it very much, an NT system tends to remove itself
> -- from the network rather promptly. -- ?, some CERT guy
> 
> 
> 



Reply to: