[Linux-cluster] Postfix active/active mail cluster

[Mehmet CELIK]

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 CELIKIstanbul/TURKEY> Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 01:33:36 +0000> From: gordan at bobich.net> To: linux-cluster at 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 at redhat.com> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
_________________________________________________________________
In a rush?  Get real-time answers with Windows Live Messenger.
http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_realtime_042008
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/linux-cluster/attachments/20080323/805c25b2/attachment.htm>