Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!think.com!news
From: rlk@think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail
Subject: Re: "buildaddr: no host"?
Message-ID: <1991Feb15.220501.15332@Think.COM>
Date: 15 Feb 91 22:05:01 GMT
References: <BOB.91Feb14155039@volitans.MorningStar.Com> <VIXIE.91Feb14135147@volition.pa.dec.com> <1991Feb14.222613.3587@Think.COM> <VIXIE.91Feb14220945@volition.pa.dec.com>
Sender: news@Think.COM
Reply-To: rlk@think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Organization: Thinking Machines Corp., Cambridge MA
Lines: 14
In-Reply-To: vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul A Vixie)

In article <VIXIE.91Feb14220945@volition.pa.dec.com>, vixie@decwrl (Paul A Vixie) writes:
]>> R$+			$#ether $@$N $:$1			local names
]
]Yes, that will work, if all your local mail really goes to the same place.
]We've got ~1400 users and ~30 mail servers, so the aliases file is nec'y
]for us.  Your solution is better in the pure case (one mail server).

You can still have one mailhub that distributes all mail to the
satellite servers (a three level hierarchy).  This avoids the problems
of distributed alias databases and associated confusion.
-- 
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk	(postmaster)		Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116