From owner-freebsd-isp Wed Feb 7 11:21:52 1996 Return-Path: owner-isp Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id LAA20825 for isp-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 1996 11:21:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from itchy.mosquito.com (itchy.mosquito.com [206.205.132.2]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA20820 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 1996 11:21:49 -0800 (PST) Received: (from boot@localhost) by itchy.mosquito.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id OAA03096; Wed, 7 Feb 1996 14:21:38 -0500 From: Bruce Bauman Message-Id: <199602071921.OAA03096@itchy.mosquito.com> Subject: sendmail virtual domains... To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 14:21:38 -0500 (EST) Cc: boot@itchy.mosquito.com (Bruce Bauman) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-isp@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk I've seen various postings about sendmail virtual domains. Basically, I have three DIFFERENT postings. All three say that Local Rule S98 needs to be rewritten. One of the 3 suggests using LOCAL_RULE_0 in my *.mc file to accomplish this. OK so far. However, the three sets of rules are not all identical: Set 1: (from homer@light.lightlink.com) LOCAL_RULE_O R$+ < @ $+ . > $: $1 < @ $2 > . R$+ < @ $+ > $* $: $(maildomains $1@$2 $: $1 < @ $2 > $3 $) R$+ < @ $+ > $* $: $(maildomains $2 $: $1 < @ $2 > $3 $) R$+ < @ $+ > . $: $1 < @ $2 . > Set 2: (from johan@josnet.se) Same as above, but doesn't mention using LOCAL_RULE_0 Set 3: (from chuck@bus.net) S98 R$+< $+. > $1< $2 > R$+< $+ > $: < > $(usermap $1$2 $) R< > $+ @ $* $: < $1 > $(usermap * @ $2 $) R< $+ > * $* $: < > $1 $2 R < $+ > $+ $: < > $2 R < > $* $: $>3 $1 Questions: 1) I assume that I want to use LOCAL_RULE_0 in my foobar.mc file, right? 2) Which set of rules is correct (or are both sets correct)? 3) One posting suggests using a dbm database, and the others suggest using a hashed database (makemap dbm versus makemap hash). Which do I want? Sendmail makes my head hurt! Thanks in advance. -- Bruce