Am 17.02.2013 21:04, schrieb Michael Grimm: > On 17.02.2013, at 11:08, Timo Sirainen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> There may be some other features that require unique hostnames in >> future. Anything where multiple Dovecot servers need to communicate >> between each others. > > I'd like to come back to that issue in order to understand your statement > cited below. > > First of all: whenever you referred to "hostname" in this thread you have > been using it as a synonym for the local part [1] of a FQDN, right? > > I have both servers of mine configured to use identical local parts ("test") > but different FQDN (aka "test.domainA.tldA" and "test.domainB.tldB"). Your > fix has been to replace "my_hostname" by "my_hostdomain()", thus using > "test.domainA.tldA" and "test.domainB.tldB" instead of "test", right? > >> If some day there is such generic communication between Dovecot servers >> I'm planning on enforcing this requirement. > > Given that all my interpretations of your statements are correct I do have > difficulties in understanding why a "generic communication between Dovecot > servers" should be limited to enforcing different local parts of all Dovecot > servers implied instead of different FQDN? That would make much more sense > regarding uniqueness in hostnames, IMHO. Two servers like > "dovecot.forget-about.it" and "dovecot.you-name.it" should be able to > communicate generically, again: IMHO.
the better design would be if doveot generates some UUID at the first startup in a /etc/dovecot/uuid.conf if the file does not exist becasue it would make hostnames meaningless at all AND give you the option if you are knowing what you are doing to replace a machine with a newer one by rsync datadirs and the whole /etc/dovecot/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
