On 18.02.2013, at 07:07, Timo Sirainen <t...@iki.fi> wrote: > On 17.2.2013, at 22.04, Michael Grimm <trash...@odo.in-berlin.de> wrote:
>> First of all: whenever you referred to "hostname" in this thread you have >> been using it as a synonym for the local part [1] of a FQDN, right? > > I mean what gethostname() function returns, which is what "hostname" command > usually also returns. And yes, I think it's the local part always. I am not familiar with the gethostname() function within FreeBSD, but the "hostname" command normally returns your FQDN, if set. That has been the case because I didn't configure my service jails with FQDNs, thus a "hostname" couldn't return something else then the local hostname. >> Given that all my interpretations of your statements are correct I do have >> difficulties in understanding why a "generic communication between Dovecot >> servers" should be limited to enforcing different local parts of all Dovecot >> servers implied instead of different FQDN? That would make much more sense >> regarding uniqueness in hostnames, IMHO. Two servers like >> "dovecot.forget-about.it" and "dovecot.you-name.it" should be able to >> communicate generically, again: IMHO. > > I think systems named those would belong to different clusters and wouldn't > need to communicate with each others. Well, now I do understand my misunderstanding: I did consider replication between different clusters a "generic communication between Dovecot servers", as well. > I looked through the code. The hostname (without domain) are currently used > for: > > * maildir filenames > * temporary filenames > * authentication challenge strings in some auth mechanisms > * logging > > So I think the hostname uniqueness matters mainly when using a shared > filesystem (e.g. NFS). So, I'm confident that I may stick to identical local hostnames regarding both servers of mine. Thanks and with kind regards, Michael
