On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 09:58:30AM -0500, John Alton Tamplin wrote: | Phil Howard wrote: | | >That would result in doubling the bandwidth on the inside server connection | >since it would be dealing with the mail first coming in to the MX, then | >being replicated back out to the other server. By delivering outside mail | >to the outside server first, the only bandwidth usage is replicating to | >the inside server (reverse the scenario for mail originating inside). | > | > | Is the cost of bandwidth to your inside server really so expensive as to | justify the expense of complicated development, hosting an offsite | server with that much bandwidth, and maintaining a remote system? It | really sounds like you are overengineering the problem.
Under the original plan, the development was not complicated and thus not expensive. The new plan changes the picture. | >If there was a way to track when the flags got changed. I feel it's OK | >to trust the clocks on the servers, and simply decide which flag state | >prevails based on which has the later timestamp. But I bet that metadata | >isn't in the current mailstore design. | > | No, the time a flag was changed isn't kept. In fact for seen flags | which are cached in memory while a mailbox is open, only a single bit is | kept. And hence with a conflict in flags, it's not trivial, maybe impossible, to resolve. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | Phil Howard - KA9WGN | Dallas | http://linuxhomepage.com/ | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Texas, USA | http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ | -----------------------------------------------------------------