Re: MTA with automatic per user bcc support?
<quote who="Victor Julien">
> Hi,
>
> The (other than that crappy) mailserver at my job supports 'bcc in' and
> 'bcc out' per user. In this way an user can read his mail at home and at
> work. I've searched on the sites of sendmail, exim and qmail for such a
> feature, but i can't find it anywhere.
>
> I'm looking for something like:
>
> john: bccin: manager@foo.com bccout: john@home.com
> ronald: bccin: manager@foo.com bccout: ronald@home.com
> maria: bccout: maria@home.com
> harry: bccin: harrys_department@foo.com
> etc.
>
> this should be in a file somewhere in the mailserver configdir.
>
> Does anyone know how to do this? Does some MTA support it?
maybe i don't understand what your trying to do but this should
be easy with aliases.
debian-user: debian-user@1.example.com,debian-user@5.example.com
email sent to debian-user@yourdomain will be delivered to 2 addresses,
while maintaining the To: header of debian-user@yourdomain
i don't understand what you mean by bccin and bccout but the
above should provide mail delivery at 2 different accounts(or more
if you like).
there is the problem of sending OUT mail, e.g. do you have a system
in place for people to authenticate to relay through your server, or
do you (hope not) have an open relay, or do you use some sort of vpn
or tunnel, or are they on ip ranges which you can allow them to safely
relay through you, or is their isp(s) flexible enough to allow them to
do this.
for employees of the company i am at i setup Squirrelmail for them to
read email at home. And i allow incoming SSL IMAP/POP connections for
reading mail(not sending). if they want to send mail they either have
to use Squirrelmail or use a VPN connection. I don't allow forwarding
of mail to isp accounts(only if they have their own mail server or
something)
hope this helps
if not lemme know what your trying to do
nate
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: