[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: courier and multiple Mailbox Servers



On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 03:32:23PM +0000, Brett Parker wrote:
> Michelle Konzack <linux4michelle@freenet.de> wrote:
> > Hello *, 
> > 
> > At my ISP <http://www.freenet.de/> i have only one server to connect,
> > <mx.freenet.de> which is for SMTP, IMAP and POP3.
> > 
> > But if I look into the transfer protocol, I see, my IMAP/POP3 connect
> > is redirected to an other Server mike <mboxXX.freenet.de>, where XX
> > is a number
> > 
> > Now I have 12 AS400 running Debian with Courier and I like to install
> > each on in another Country in the world like
> > 
> > mbox-ma.mydomain.tld
> > mbox-de.mydomain.tld
> > mbox-ir.mydomain.tld
> > ....
> > ...
> > 
> > where the $USER mailboxes are located but my $USER should connect to
> > <mail.mydomain.tld>.
> > 
> > Does anyone know, ho to setup such System ?
> 
> probably worth looking in to perdition, which will accept the connect
> and then redirect on the username. But, you're still using 2 lots of
> bandwidth (the bandwidth between the user and mail.mydomain.tld and the
> bandwidth between there and mbox-blah.mydomain.tld).
> 
> It's probably better to just tell the user which is the correct server
> to connect to, especially if they are hosted in different countries.

IMO solution would be to have DNS servers configured to give different
ip/cname for mail.mydomain.tld depending on client source ip (bind9 supports
it), but I think it would be quite big trouble to maintain proper subnet
mappings, and you need balancing anyway in case user will be directed
to wrong server (maybe just by NFS over VPN?) - it's unavoidable considering
recursive nature of dns. Another thing is that you need to move users' files
to different server if they change their physical location. I'm not sure if
any fully automated solution for this is possible, given that you need
to somehow distinguish physically moved users from not optimal DNS subnet
assignations.

Regards,
      RT



Reply to: