Random delivery

[Jochen Bern]

On 12/31/2017 01:30 PM, Jorge Bastos wrote:
> It's that what I want!!
> Sequentially, my bad saying random!

The trickier parts of coding LDAs - with locking/semaphores and such -
address the case of *(near) simultaneous* arrival of e-mails. In your
case, you wouldn't need to lock "the mailbox" (if info@ even *has* one)
but wherever the info "which address did we *last* forward to?" is
stored. Do you actually need 100% correctness (a. of sequential
selection, or at least b. of even distribution with 33% each) in that
corner case? It's not like Received: headers would usually include
timestamps with subsecond precision to base a retrospect analysis on ...

(Out of interest, if someone were to send an e-mail to you - say, order
something from your company - and sends a reply-to-all to his own copy
before anyone answered the original mail - say, "oops, I forgot to tell
you the delivery address, here it is" -, do you really want those two
mails to go to *different* recipients with 66+% probability?)

I'ld guess that such a function can be had in the final MTA, in dovecot
acting as MDA, in the alias-resolving mechanism (if separate), maybe
even in the mechanism generating out-of-office autoreplies (if
tweakable). Deciding which route would be the *easiest* to take requires
more details of your setup, though ...

Kind regards,
-- 
Jochen Bern
Systemingenieur

www.binect.de

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4278 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <https://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20180101/53301efc/attachment.p7s>