On 30-Apr-08, at 5:08 AM, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 08:47:05AM +0000, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 10:04:32AM +0200, Manuel Bouyer wrote:Shouldn't the last line be "err(EX_UNAVAILABLE, "unknown name: %s", name) ?Well, it depends: if you return EX_OK, the message is dropped (which isthe current behavior), and if you return EX_UNAVAILABLE, the MTA generates a DSN.But that can only happen if the MTA thought the user existed and mail.local reports it does not. You could get that if the MTA and mail.local use two different sources, ot if the user was deleted between the two lookups.Do all MTAs check that the local user exists before calling mail.local ?
The MTA should check if the user exists before accepting the message in the first place -- especially if they are providing SMTP service (they _must_ in order to return a meaningful response to the sender if the user doesn't exist).
Indeed mail.local _could_ be made so blind as to just create a file in the spool directory with the same name as the user-id (though there could be issues with character case, depending on what the MTA passes to it). In fact I would strongly prefer it to be that way.
--
Greg A. Woods; Planix, Inc.
<woods%planix.ca@localhost>