> plumbing  implies  "no  user  involvement", and once the plumbing is
> installed,  even  the  plumbers  never  touch  it.  ie,  hands  free
> maintenance.

Peering  offers  more  one-time  "plumbing,  " as you put it, and less
continuous  maintenance  than using a non-peering gateway against more
than  one  mailbox server for the same domain.

Eschewing  peering  in a multi-mailbox-server environment requires the
continuous  reimport of alias tables after any user is added, renamed,
or  moved.  This may be a simple "one-touch" script after every update
to  the  userbase,  or  performed  on  a periodic basis, but it is not
real-time  or error-free, as is ideal (people will live with what they
think  is  the  best  solution  because  they  haven't been exposed to
alternatives,  or  because  there  are  other  great  functional areas
offered  by  an  alternative  solution, but that does not diminish the
importance of hands-free user maintenance in general criteria).

It's relevant to highlight that when using a IMail gateway without any
peering,  you  can  export  and  import  alias tables there as well to
provide envelope rejection and/or inbound routing to multiple servers.

> peering, always increases SMTP traffic between peers...

I  don't  see  an  object  here:  increases  it  over what? Peering is
presented here, and in the IMail manual, as an alternative to a single
mailbox  server.  I  didn't see this as a debate over about turning an
existing  static-routed  server  farm  into  a  peer  server  farm and
worrying  about its SMTP carrying capacity before and after peering is
introduced.  It's about the decision to implement, or continue to use,
a  peer  server  farm  instead  of  a  single  mailbox  server.  So an
"increase"  is  logically  impossible.  All  you  will see in a proper
implementation  of peering is an increase in user performance relative
to the performance of a single server.

Could  user performance *then* be increased again by the addition of a
third-party or IMail 8 remote delivery gateway on top of peering? Yes.

Can  a  third-party  or  IMail  8 gateway do what peering does for the
management of mandatory user resources? No.

Can  peering  do  what  some  third-party  MXs  can  do  for anti-spam
protection? No.

Can  an  IMail  8 MX do what some third-party MXs can do for anti-spam
protection? No.

> and  requires  users to remember which peer they must connect to for
> reading  mailboxes,  which  itself  requires  new  DNS subdomains of
> peer1.domain.com,  peer2.domain.com,  and  pushes  that  info to the
> users level.

There's  no  plain-vanilla  that  allows multiple mailbox servers, yet
does  not  require users and/or their MUAs to know where their mail is
hosted, so this isn't an argument for plain-vanilla over peering. It's
a    good    argument   for   application   proxies/intelligent   load
balancing/shared  storage over peering, but that's a no-brainer if you
have loads of cash to throw into middleware, no?

Also, the use of "peer1" as a hostname would be about the worst naming
practice. If you have branches in AZ and MI, is it that easy to forget
to  go  to  http://arizona.example.com? Most multinational enterprises
don't think so. In addition, a local nameserver (or, even without DNS,
Windows name resolution) simplifies this to http://mail. No matter how
you   simplify  or  extend  your  naming  conventions,  when  multiple
mailbox/web  servers  are required for user-acceptable performance but
you don't have the budget to put in transparent load-balancing/routing
as well, you *must* end up with multiple hosts.

>> and  would  also  allow  branch office managers to manage their own
>> userbase without any communications with HQ , if desired.

> This is the ONLY advantage of peering, so they darn better desire it, to 
> offset the disadvantages.

I'm  understanding  that from the outside, you still don't see how and
why peering works, but I will attempt to give some more use cases in a
follow-up e-mail.

-Sandy


------------------------------------
Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist
Broadleaf Systems, a division of
Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc.
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------


To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/

Reply via email to