Thanx for information. Just, I said be carrefull. My organization is below.
LVS -> 78.189.X.X {25,143}
MAIL1 -> 78.189.X.X {25,143}
MAIL2 -> 78.189.X.X {25,143}
MAIL3 -> 78.189.X.X {25,143}
SMTPGW -> 78.189.Y.Y {All outgoing traffic}
sh $ host -t ptr 78.189.Y.Y
Y.Y.189.78.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer xxxx.exampledomain.com
-- Mehmet CELIKIstanbul/TURKEY> Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 01:33:36 +0000> From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected]> Subject: Re: [Linux-cluster]
Postfix active/active mail cluster> > Mehmet CELIK wrote:> > > > Hi, of course,
you can do this. so, each node on *LVS will respond > > active.> > Not much
point - DNS load balancing works just fine for a mail server. > Or you can use
the cluser resource manager to migrate the IP of a downed > node to another
node.> > > But, this is different from storage subject. The IMAP don't be > >
problem. But, the SMTP can be a problem. Because, you have dynamic ip on > >
the RBL checks. For this, you must use smtp gateway. All outgoing smtp > >
traffic must be from a single IP.> > I don't remember anyone saying that
dynamic IPs are used. Just because > the mail cluster has a different IP for
each host doesn't make them > dynamic. RBLs that block dynamic IPs largely only
block > dial-up/broadband dynamic IP ranges, and I don't thing the original >
poster ever suggested that this is the sort of range the mail cluster > he's
building will be on.> > There is no RFC that states that all mail from a domain
must come from > one IP. Having multi-homed mail servers with multiple IPs is
perfectly > RFC compliant. Google do it, for example, as do many other mail
service > providers. The main issue with this is that there are people who use
> fundamentally broken anti-spam measures like greylisting, which fall > over
flat on their face when consecutive delivery attempts come from > different
IPs. Breaking your mail cluster scalability to work around > someone's broken
mail system is, IMO, not the correct solution.> > However, as I mentioned in
the other post on this thread, if you make > the mail spool local rather than
shared, then the outgoing mail will not > bounce between the nodes - it will
remain on the same node until > successfully delivered (or bounced). This works
around the problem of > broken mail systems.> > Gordan> > --> Linux-cluster
mailing list> [email protected]>
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
_________________________________________________________________
In a rush? Get real-time answers with Windows Live Messenger.
http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_realtime_042008--
Linux-cluster mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
