From: email builder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > OK, distilling this conversation a little bit, can anyone comment > on this: > > > > You are darn close there... What you want is > > > > > > /usr/bin/spamc -u <username> -d spa.yourdomain.com -H > > > > > > And spa.yourdomain.com has two ptr records, one to 127.0.0.1 > > > and the other to 123.45.6.789 > > > > > > in Bind talk that would be > > > > > > spa.yourdomain.com. IN A 127.0.0.1 > > > spa.yourdomain.com. IN A 123.45.6.789 > > > > > > and in tinydns > > > > > > +spa.yourdomain.com:127.0.0.1:3600 > > > +spa.yourdomain.com:123.45.6.789:3600 > > > > > > I'm not sure if you really need the -H, I know I don't using > > > dnscache as my local dns server. > > > > Why? Does dnscache randomize for you? > > > > > I haven't tested using a -d 127.0.0.1,123.45.6.789 to see if > > > spamc will fail over to the second host if all the connections > > > are busy on the first host. I could be wrong but I don't think > > > it will fail over to the second host because the first host > > > will just place it in the queue to be processed. I could very > > > well be wrong though. > > > > But using the DNS-based approach as you do, it *will* fail over?? > > Why? It seems like if spamd tries to queue up any request it > > gets, then it would happen to you, too. Spamd should not have > > any way of knowing if you used DNS to resolve it or the addresses > > were listed on the command line, no?
DNS will not fail over, but it should give you crude 50/50 load balancing. Sometimes the server will get one IP and sometimes it will get the other. The server should either rotate or randomize the IPs. You will need to test your DNS server to see how it works. This is assuming that you will query the server each time. Local caching can kill this scheme. As far as I know, there is no way to weight the traffic toward a particular server without some sort of load balancing or proxy solution. Bowie
