🚀 go-pugleaf

I have personally worked on a system where we had 3 different types of MTA
routing on names within one namespace.
The setup was:

2 EAN MTAs giving service to users

1 M.PLUS MTA handling external communication on X.400

1 IDA SENDMAIL MTA (OK, it's not X.400, but it is an MTA :-) handling
    RFC-822 communication and user services

We have a bunch of scripts generating tables from a single "alias file"
for all 3 systems.

The verdict so far is that:
- It works!
- It loops :-(
With these particular versions of the programs, none of the pieces were
able to add trace to the message that survived the transfers between them,
and no other loop detection was available.
(Keywords:
  - X.400(84) has standard trace only on PRMD/ADMD boundaries
  - M.PLUS in its antique version that we use stripped trace when routing
    from X.400 to Sendmail)

We are thinking about throwing it all out and replacing it with PP.
Conclusion: I recommend this kind of thing ONLY if you can do proper loop
detection.

The University of Oslo is serving several namespaces using one PP MTA.
It makes moving people around within the university much easier.

So, yes, you can do both things, and it is very useful to do so, but doing
it in a mixed environment is a pain, because of the multiplicity of tables
involved.
--
                   Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Harald.Alvestrand@delab.sintef.no
C=no;PRMD=uninett;O=sintef;OU=delab;S=alvestrand;G=harald
+47 7 59 70 94