- Previous message: Keith Matthews: "Re: Postfix Config"
- Maybe in reply to: Hawk: "Postfix Config"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
|
|
|
From: Victor Duchovni (no email)
Date: Tue Jan 03 2006 - 13:36:51 EST
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 06:25:55PM +0000, Keith Matthews wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 13:15:15 -0500
> "Hawk" <> wrote:
>
> > Sorry.... I have setup the following:
> >
> > Internet -> postfix1 -> postfix 2 -> postfix 3
> >
> > I would like:
> >
> > Internet -> postfix1 -> postfix 2 -> postfix 3 and postfix 4
> >
> > Postfix 1 - Antivirus
> > Postfix 2 - Spam Filtering
> > Postfix 3 & 4 - mail store or mailboxes
> >
> > Postfix 3 & 4 have identical user mailboxes - insurance if either goes
> > down.
> >
>
>
> What's the point ?
>
> you still have 2 single points of failure in the system.
No, loss of stored mail is much higher risk than loss of mail in transit..
The harder problem is what to do with state (read/unread flags, message
deletion, IMAP uids, ...). Replicating mail stores may require more
than delivering the same messages twice (they may need to be delivered
in the same order, ...). This depends on the access protocols and the
store implementation.
Instead of duplicate delivery, master/slave replication, or mirrored
(multi-campus?) SAN storage may be more appropriate.
-- Viktor. Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header. To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below: <mailto:?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users> If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put "It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.
|
|
|