On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 9:39 PM, Wietse Venema <wie...@porcupine.org> wrote: > One possibility is to have postscreen listen on multiple IP addresses > with different MX preferences, and to require that clients don't > connect to the secondary port before the primary.
Clever! > The problem I see with this is that a site with multiple MX hosts > would need to share the postscreen database. I'm concerned that a > networked SQL database would introduce unacceptable latencies and > that it the postscreen database would become a single point of > failure for multuple MX hosts. I haven't peeked inside postscreen yet, but my guess is that with postscreen greylisting we would be facing a similar situation, i.e., high latency (possibly redundant) shared database for multi-MX sites, or local lower-latency store for single-MX deployments. I don't see how to effectively realize greylisting in single-process multi-MX postscreen. Perhaps you plan to implement the greylist database manipulation code outside postscreen, using multiple proxymap-like helper processes? Leandro
