Ok - let me rephrase the question. I guess Charles got it right.
I understand that Mail Delivery load balance can be achieved by usingMX
priorities. My concern is not that, rather I am more worries about users
who will be using A record to configure their mail clients like IMAP or
POP. I am
δΊ 2012-12-14 17:14, Manish Rane ει:
I understand that Mail Delivery load balance can be achieved by usingMX
priorities. My concern is not that, rather I am more worries about users
who will be using A record to configure their mail clients like IMAP or
POP. I am thinking on load balancing their
Perfect this is what I was talking about, now
My IMAP and SMTP are on same server and confusion starts from there
since MX records will eventaully should have A record as well so in
that case I will be having 2 A records pointing to same IPs correct.
Woudl that casue any issue, theortically it
At 01:14 14-12-2012, Manish Rane wrote:
I understand that Mail Delivery load balance can be achieved by
usingMX priorities. My concern is not that, rather I am more worries
about users who will be using A record to configure their mail
clients like IMAP or POP. I am thinking on load balancing
In article mailman.885.1355477939.11945.bind-us...@lists.isc.org,
SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
See RFC 6186. Verify whether the mail clients support that specification.
Are there any mail clients that support this yet?
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
[mailto:bar...@alum.mit.edu]
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 10:49 AM
To: comp-protocols-dns-b...@isc.org
comp-protocols-dns-b...@isc.org
Subject: Re: Can we load balance traf[f]ic for CNAME records?
In article mailman.885.1355477939.11945.bind-us...@lists.isc.org,
SM s...@resistor.net wrote
Manis Rane wrote on 12/14/2012 02:12:59 PM:
That is true by default rrset-order is cyclic I believe. And even if
it replies randomly I guess we will have to NAT the traffic on
firewall for particular IPs
Your original post made me believe you are running Windows CAS servers.
Why not use
7 matches
Mail list logo
