-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Len Conrad
Sent: 25. august 2003 19:24
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [IMGate] Re: transport.map question
>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.
what i meant here was a webinterface adding the new domains to the mysql db on each
server, can't see what that can do bad
>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??
hmm well didn't think it this way... but when you turn it like this i Do see the obvius
>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.
so putting these 2 serves i front with failover for eachother and hiding the Imail
servers is the safest way?
then using only the imail servers to take outgoing smtp for the mailaccounts with the
virus scanning and routing all outgoing mail
which are not stored locally on the imail servers through the imgate working as a
gateway.
>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
Then it is good to know the list can help :o)
