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

Exim issue with virtual user setup -- non routeable address for non system "group" [solved]



Hi,

This email is to possibly help someone wanting to setup virtual users
with Exim4 on Debian using split config.



Here is my virtual user router file


# cat  /etc/exim4/conf.d/router/250_virtual

virtual:
    debug_print = "R: virtual for $local_part@$domain"
    driver = redirect
    allow_fail
    domains = dsearch;/etc/exim4/virtual
    data = ${lookup{$local_part}lsearch*{/etc/exim4/virtual/$domain}}
    user = list
    pipe_transport = address_pipe
    no_more


And a sample domain file as follows:

# cat /etc/exim4/virtual/example.org

sales: person1,person2,person3
person1: person1
person2: peson2
person3: person3
otherperson1: otherperson1
otherperson2: otherperson2
badperson1: :fail:

There is no system user named sales, all incoming mail needs to go to
the listed people whom do have system accounts on the server.

When sending to the sales@ address, the mail was successfully delivered
to all of the required people, but a non-deliverable (non-routeable
user) message was still sent to the original sender.


To fix the issue, I had to comment out the check_local_user line in this
router file:


# cat /etc/exim4/conf.d/router/900_exim4-config_local_user

### router/900_exim4-config_local_user
#################################

# This router matches local user mailboxes. If the router fails, the error
# message is "Unknown user".

local_user:
  debug_print = "R: local_user for $local_part@$domain"
  driver = accept
  domains = +local_domains
  # need check_local_user commented because of virtual user setup....
  #check_local_user
  local_parts = ! root
  transport = LOCAL_DELIVERY
  cannot_route_message = Unknown user


Sending to sales@ now works as expected.  All persons can receive their
email fine too and when mail is sent to the noentry@ address, it will
cause the non-deliverable message to be sent just fine too.

Cheers
AndrewM


Reply to: