> no, DNS's mx records need to deliver mail to each server. I'd actually say, "Yes, and either or both servers can have an MX record." Mail processing will be distributed across equal-cost MXs. But there's no reason to give each server an MX record if your traffic patterns are not actually equal.
> Imail SMTP peering will peer incoming mail only, not pop or web. you will > need separate hostnames for each imail server, as above. You don't need two MXs, though. >>And if that is possible does the main server chew up bandwidth to >>both locations to make the mail delivery? There's no redirect function per se. The answering MX or MXs will accept mail completely, then forward it, as you said. > with imail peering and 2 peers, 50% of the mail goes to the wrong box > (bandwidth!), which must forward it to the good box (bandwidth!). That's not necessarily the case. If you have, say, a main office with 95 users and a satellite with 5 users, you only set up the main office as the MX. If every user gets the same amount of incoming mail, only 5% of your traffic is remote-to-peer-to-peer! It's actually very efficient, for the simplicity of having a single domain. And if you set up the satellite at a higher MX cost, you have backup for the main site that's only used in case of failure. But if you have two geographically dispersed sites with substantial standalone load, it is inefficient to run peering over the wide area. -Sandy Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html to be removed from this list. An Archive of this list is available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Please visit the Knowledge Base for answers to frequently asked questions: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
