How to "warn_if_reject" with relay_recipient_maps?

I need to test a newly created list of acceptable user addresses
using the "relay_recipient_maps" parameter.

Is there a way of just logging a warning without actually rejecting
addresses that are not listed in the relay_recipient_maps database?

I know about "soft_bounce", but that actually affects delivery and
the status reply to the sender.

What I'm looking for is something analogous to the "warn_if_reject"
parameter. A way to still accept all mail that would have otherwise
been rejected by virtue of not being listed in the relay_recipient_maps
database, but to log a warning indicating that the message would
have been rejected had the "warn_if_reject" parameter not been in
place (so that I can then update the relay_recipient_maps database
appropriately for addresses that were omitted in error).

Thanks.

Ken
--
Ken Bell :: kenbell_AT_panix_DOT_com :: 212-475-4976 (voice)

On 2008-03-04, Ken Bell <kenbell@panix.com> wrote:
>
> I need to test a newly created list of acceptable user addresses
> using the "relay_recipient_maps" parameter.
>
> Is there a way of just logging a warning without actually rejecting
> addresses that are not listed in the relay_recipient_maps database?

soft_bounce = yes
is really your best bet.
--
Ralf Hildebrandt (i.A. des IT-Zentrums) Ralf.Hildebrandt@charite.de
Charite - Universitätsmedizin Berlin Tel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155
Gemeinsame Einrichtung von FU- und HU-Berlin Fax. +49 (0)30-450 570-962
IT-Zentrum Standort CBF send no mail to snickebo@charite.de

On 2008-03-06, Ralf Hildebrandt <hildeb@charite.de> wrote:
> On 2008-03-04, Ken Bell <kenbell@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>> I need to test a newly created list of acceptable user addresses
>> using the "relay_recipient_maps" parameter.
>>
>> Is there a way of just logging a warning without actually rejecting
>> addresses that are not listed in the relay_recipient_maps database?
>
> soft_bounce = yes
> is really your best bet.

OR, even better:
unknown_relay_recipient_reject_code = 250
:)

--
Ralf Hildebrandt (i.A. des IT-Zentrums) Ralf.Hildebrandt@charite.de
Charite - Universitätsmedizin Berlin Tel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155
Gemeinsame Einrichtung von FU- und HU-Berlin Fax. +49 (0)30-450 570-962
IT-Zentrum Standort CBF send no mail to snickebo@charite.de

In article <slrnfsvqn2.l4k.hildeb@postamt.charite.de>,
Ralf Hildebrandt <hildeb@charite.de> wrote:
>On 2008-03-06, Ralf Hildebrandt <hildeb@charite.de> wrote:
>> On 2008-03-04, Ken Bell <kenbell@panix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I need to test a newly created list of acceptable user addresses
>>> using the "relay_recipient_maps" parameter.
>>>
>>> Is there a way of just logging a warning without actually rejecting
>>> addresses that are not listed in the relay_recipient_maps database?
>>
>> soft_bounce = yes
>> is really your best bet.
>
>OR, even better:
>unknown_relay_recipient_reject_code = 250
>:)

If it weren't for the smiley I'd have tried this right away on our
production server :-)

But I get the feeling that the combination of:

[soft_bounce=yes + unknown_relay_recipient_reject_code=250]

won't do exactly what I'm looking for, which is all three of:

a) accept and try to deliver the message whether or not it's
in the relay_recipient_maps database; let the ultimate mail
host, whatever it is (one of ours, of course) bounce the
message if it's undeliverable,

b) return a 250 status code (well, it will do that I'm sure)

c) make an entry in the mail log if the recipient is not found
in the relay_recipients_maps database.

I think that [soft_bounce=yes + unknown_relay_recipient_reject_code=250]
will accept and queue the mail but not attempt to deliver it, tell
the sender that all went well (250), and not log anything that
specifically indicates that the recipient isn't in the database.

If that is the case, I would be better off using the default "450"
reject code and feverishly reading through the mail log to catch
the occasional valid user and add him/her to the database in time
for the queued-but-soft-bounced messages to be delivered (most of
the soft bounces will be spam that was sent to nonexistent users
here, but I want to try to catch the few valid users that I probably
left out of the first cut of our database).

Am I correct in my sense of what's happening with soft_bounce=yes?

Many thanks for your reply!

Ken
--
Ken Bell :: kenbell_AT_panix_DOT_com :: 212-475-4976 (voice)