Diego,
The idea of having multiple gateways is a bit if a kludge, but it was
essentially free to add.
As I see it, the real problem is the assumption that the gateway is a host.
The gateway could be looked up and handled as any other host in the normal
scheme. The number and preference of MX records for servers handling
gateway duty would be the same as for any other domain. And just as for
hosts that don't have MX records, the A record would be used. If the
gateway were specified as an IP address, that would be the implied A record.
Since the original code didn't take that approach at all, I didn't actually
think of it until last night when I was writing the comments for config.xml.
The current means for using a gateway lacks any way to express whether or
not there is a preference. I'm not overly inclined to complicate the
gateway code further at this time, considering that there are changes to how
James handles multiple MX records generally that should be made. Efforts to
change the code would probably best to made in that direction, involving a
more robust implementation of RFC 2821 sections 4.5.4.1 and 5. Addressing
that would address the other.
--- Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: Diego Castillo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 6:40
To: 'James Users List'
Subject: RE : [ANN] James v2.2.0a1 test version
Hi Noel,
I have had a look into the new RemoteDelivery supporting multiple
gateways. I see that it delivers the message to
targetServers.iterator().next(). This means that if the first of the
gateways is always up, the rest of the gateways will never be used. It
would be nice if a load balancing algorithm was used (round robin or at
least random). What do you think?
Regards,
Diego
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
