I haven't been able to send to the list for some reason... Steve Cobb, A+, MCSE Computer Geeks [EMAIL PROTECTED] ********************************** Need faster Internet service? www.geeksnet.com
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ISPhuset Nordic AS Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 1:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [IMGate] Re: transport.map question -----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)
