Sheer El-Showk writes:
> Thanks, but my real concern is that all the mail NOT go through a SINGLE
> mail server (in terms of bandwithd). If I do what you suggested
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] still has to go through location A (the full message,
> including attachements has to be received at that loc
-Original Message-
> From: Sheer El-Showk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 2:14 PM
> To: Russell Nelson
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: domain splitting
>
>
>
> Thanks, but my real concern is that all the mail NOT go
> through a
On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 05:25:46PM -0500, Ben Beuchler wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 09:13:32PM +, Sheer El-Showk wrote:
>
> > Thanks, but my real concern is that all the mail NOT go through a SINGLE
> > mail server (in terms of bandwithd). If I do what you suggested
>
> I don't think it
On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 09:13:32PM +, Sheer El-Showk wrote:
> Thanks, but my real concern is that all the mail NOT go through a SINGLE
> mail server (in terms of bandwithd). If I do what you suggested
I don't think it's possible to avoid that. Which server mail is sent to
is a function of
> From: Sheer El-Showk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 21:13:32 + (WET)
>
>
> Thanks, but my real concern is that all the mail NOT go through a SINGLE
> mail server (in terms of bandwithd). If I do what you suggested
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] still has to go through location A (the f
Thanks, but my real concern is that all the mail NOT go through a SINGLE
mail server (in terms of bandwithd). If I do what you suggested
[EMAIL PROTECTED] still has to go through location A (the full message,
including attachements has to be received at that location) which means
that it becomes
Sheer El-Showk writes:
> I would like to host mail for a single domain (ie all users should be
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]) on several (geographically distributed) machines,
> with users in each area receiving their mail at the local mail sever. The
> hard part is, as bandwidth is a limiting issue, I
