[Mimedefang] Ignoring sendmail aliases

[Kelly Jones]

I just realized I never mentioned my real problem in my original
message (aside from being scatterbrained, apparently).

The problem: sendmail rejects the "RCPT TO:" with a user unknown. It
then (known bug) passes it along to mimedefang, where I OK it, but
it's too late:

== CUT HERE ==

Oct 27 22:46:46 devmx sm-mta[17796]: m9RMkjoM017796: <-- RCPT
TO:<foo at xyz.com>

Oct 27 22:46:46 devmx sm-mta[17796]: m9RMkjoM017796: --- 550 5.1.1
<foo at xyz.com>... User unknown

Oct 27 22:46:46 devmx sm-mta[17796]: m9RMkjoM017796:
<foo at xyz.com>... User unknown

Oct 27 22:46:46 devmx sm-mta[17796]: m9RMkjoM017796:
milter=mimedefang, action=rcpt, continue

Oct 27 22:46:46 devmx sm-mta[17796]: m9RMkjoM017796: Milter: rcpts:
<foo at xyz.com>

== CUT HERE ==

How do I tell sendmail to stay out of the validating-recipients business?

I'm pulling both the valid recipients and their "true" delivery
addresses from LDAP. I realize sendmail can do this directly, but
there's a lot of potential in having mimedefang do it (eg, one-use
addresses, expiring addresses, addresses that only work after you've
validated on a website, etc)

-- 
We're just a Bunch Of Regular Guys, a collective group that's trying
to understand and assimilate technology. We feel that resistance to
new ideas and technology is unwise and ultimately futile.

DISCLAIMER: This message has no disclaimers.

On 10/27/08, David F. Skoll <dfs at roaringpenguin.com> wrote:
> Kelly Jones wrote:
>
>> When someone does "RCPT TO: <xyz at mydomain.com>", I want mimedefang's
>> filter_recipient() to do everything. I don't want sendmail's aliases
>> file involved.
>
> Ehmmm....
>
> So then don't create any aliases?
>
>> Of course, since I'm not using aliases, I need to tell mimedefang how
>> to deliver the mail.
>
>> How do I tell mimedefang to deliver mail to xyz at server1.mydomain.com,
>> for example?
>
> MIMEDefang is not responsible for delivering mail.  It's responsible
> for filtering it.  Sendmail is responsible for delivering it.  It's
> possible to muck up that separation of duties by adding/deleting recipients,
> but it really sounds messy.  Why are you trying to do it that way?
>
> Regards,
>
> David.
> _______________________________________________
> NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above
> message, it is NULL AND VOID.  You may ignore it.