Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Support for local-only delivery? #62

Open
kevinoid opened this issue Mar 12, 2019 · 5 comments
Open

Support for local-only delivery? #62

kevinoid opened this issue Mar 12, 2019 · 5 comments

Comments

@kevinoid
Copy link

Great project! I am currently using Exim configured as a local-only MTA and would like to switch to dma. I couldn't find a way to configure dma to disable remote delivery. Is it currently possible? If not, is it a feature which you might be willing to consider? If you are don't plan to implement it, but would accept a PR, any guidelines for the configuration option name etc.?

Thanks for considering,
Kevin

@corecode
Copy link
Owner

how would handle mails with a remote destination? bounce them?

@kevinoid
Copy link
Author

Exim delivers an DSN to the local postmaster. For my own uses, it would be fine if sendmail printed an error message and exited non-zero without queuing the message at all. I'd defer to your judgement for whichever is better (or easier to implement).

@corecode
Copy link
Owner

Fair enough, why don't you submit a patch for a new config setting, say LOCAL_ONLY?

@tedkotz
Copy link

tedkotz commented Sep 3, 2023

I think I will give this a try. Though, I think I will call the setting LOCALONLY to follow the convention of the other config items that do not have underscores. And I can easily subst it if a different name makes more sense.

Great project by the way. As the smallest mail server in Debian, I love it in embedded, and kiosk type setups.
I have wished it had local only delivery for a long time.

If you don't see a pull request in a week I probably had to give up.

@tedkotz
Copy link

tedkotz commented Sep 3, 2023

Actually I just saw this is duplicated by #121.

I'm going to push my change up to my fork, but hold off on making a PR as it will probably be superseded by #125.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants