>i actually thougt about having a db on each of the servers with a shared >interface
nothing shared, each IMGate should be fully independent and self-contained. >we are at the moment taking about 100 k off messages a day serious, but not really heavy for one machine >thes 2 shall be like > >mx 5 the Imail server ??? why put the indefensible Imail server BEFORE the tough-as-nails IMGate boxes?? >i already have 2 Imail servers in front and and an Imgate as a gateway out > >Just want to increase the amount of mail i can receive IMGate as MX 5 and Imail as no MX will scale MUCH better than what you have. >and have a failover system that are safe and ready to denfend a new Sobig >attack In IMGate terms, you aren't ready for anything since you have Internet hitting the mailbox server directly. Len
