[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

RE: [Linux-cluster] Postfix active/active mail cluster

Thanx for information. Just, I said be carrefull. My organization is below.
LVS -> 78.189.X.X    {25,143}
MAIL1 -> 78.189.X.X {25,143}
MAIL2 -> 78.189.X.X {25,143}
MAIL3 -> 78.189.X.X {25,143}
SMTPGW -> 78.189.Y.Y {All outgoing traffic}
sh $ host -t ptr 78.189.Y.Y
Y.Y.189.78.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer xxxx.exampledomain.com

Mehmet CELIK

> Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 01:33:36 +0000
> From: gordan bobich net
> To: linux-cluster redhat com
> Subject: Re: [Linux-cluster] Postfix active/active mail cluster
> Mehmet CELIK wrote:
> >
> > Hi, of course, you can do this. so, each node on *LVS will respond
> > active.
> Not much point - DNS load balancing works just fine for a mail server.
> Or you can use the cluser resource manager to migrate the IP of a downed
> node to another node.
> > But, this is different from storage subject. The IMAP don't be
> > problem. But, the SMTP can be a problem. Because, you have dynamic ip on
> > the RBL checks. For this, you must use smtp gateway. All outgoing smtp
> > traffic must be from a single IP.
> I don't remember anyone saying that dynamic IPs are used. Just because
> the mail cluster has a different IP for each host doesn't make them
> dynamic. RBLs that block dynamic IPs largely only block
> dial-up/broadband dynamic IP ranges, and I don't thing the original
> poster ever suggested that this is the sort of range the mail cluster
> he's building will be on.
> There is no RFC that states that all mail from a domain must come from
> one IP. Having multi-homed mail servers with multiple IPs is perfectly
> RFC compliant. Google do it, for example, as do many other mail service
> providers. The main issue with this is that there are people who use
> fundamentally broken anti-spam measures like greylisting, which fall
> over flat on their face when consecutive delivery attempts come from
> different IPs. Breaking your mail cluster scalability to work around
> someone's broken mail system is, IMO, not the correct solution.
> However, as I mentioned in the other post on this thread, if you make
> the mail spool local rather than shared, then the outgoing mail will not
> bounce between the nodes - it will remain on the same node until
> successfully delivered (or bounced). This works around the problem of
> broken mail systems.
> Gordan
> --
> Linux-cluster mailing list
> Linux-cluster redhat com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster

In a rush? Get real-time answers with Windows Live Messenger.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]