267945Re: Separate Submission Instance on Same IP as MX
- Aug 5, 2010On 08/05/2010 11:57 AM, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
> On 08/01/2010 08:42 PM, Mike Morris wrote:I am aware that from the perspective of an MTA, all mail comes in and
>> On 08/01/2010 02:37 AM, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
>>> On 08/01/2010 04:11 AM, Mike Morris wrote:
>>>> I'm working on a mail server deployment that will only have one server
>>>> for MX and SASL submission purposes. Generally I like to have separate
>>>> Postfix instances to handle a specific task.
>>> Why ?
>>> It's totally useless in this case.
>>> SMTP runs on port 25, and rejects anything not_invented_here.
>>> Submission runs on port 587, and requires SASL.
>> I don't believe it is "totally useless" to use separate instances for
>> distinct services.
> Certainly, and postfix supplies its fair share, as I explained above.
>> Configurations can get complex. Outgoing mail may
>> be handled differently than incoming mail.
> All mail comes in. all mail goes out.
all mail goes out. However, from the perspective of an organization,
there may be differences between how mail coming in to, and sent from,
that organization is handled.
>I've set up mail systems using both approaches. It isn't always
>> Using multiple instances can
>> simplify the task. While it may not *work* in this case, using multiple
>> instances for MX and submission services is far from *useless*.
> Instead of using multiple instances of postfix, why not use multiple
> smtpd-listener instances, like we suggest ?
possible to foresee what may be required in the future. In the long run
it often is simpler to maintain the configurations of multiple instances
from the beginning rather than switch to such a setup after maintaining
a single instance becomes unwieldy.
I hadn't intended this to become a multiple- vs. single-instance debate.
Each individual user can decide which approach best suits their
environment, and when one is preferred over the other.
Anyhow, in this particular case we were able to configure the server
with a second IP address.
>>>> mail_version = 2.8-20100707I was wondering if this was going to be your response. I find it
>> Plenty of people would argue that Postfix experimental releases are
>> quite stable. In this case I would like to test and make use of postscreen.
> Yes, postscreen is sexy... I think there are ways to get it to work with
> 2.7, if you're prepared to overlay it onto a 2.7 build and fix what
> breaks (if anything breaks, I know of at least one successful deployment).
interesting that the person who shouted "UNSTABLE" in response to
someone using an experimental Postfix release would then suggest such an
approach. Out of curiosity, what would your reasons be for suggesting
running postscreen with 2.7 rather than using a 2.8 snapshot? Wouldn't
similar instability concerns about the latter apply to the former?
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>