On Sunday 31 August 2008 01:06, Sahil Tandon wrote:
> Stefan Jakobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 3) Keep the actual server organisation: 4 servers with postfix,
> > amavisd, spamassassin, clamav.
> > Advantage: Known configuration, easy to extend
> > Disadvantage: problem with loadbalancing
>
> W
Stefan Jakobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 3) Keep the actual server organisation: 4 servers with postfix,
> amavisd, spamassassin, clamav.
> Advantage: Known configuration, easy to extend
> Disadvantage: problem with loadbalancing
Would you describe the problem you're having with load balancing
Stefan Jakobs wrote:
> 3) Keep the actual server organisation: 4 servers with postfix,
> amavisd, spamassassin, clamav.
> Advantage: Known configuration, easy to extend
> Disadvantage: problem with loadbalancing
This is the option I would choose. What is the load-balancing problems
you're having
Hello list,
In the moment our mailtraffic is handled by four mailgateways which are
reachable through one round-robin dns-mx record. Each gateway runs postfix,
amavisd, spamassassin and clamav. The four gateways handle 2.8 millions
connections a day.
My employee likes to replace the gateways wi
