Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: SMTP proxy????

Expand Messages
  • Victor Duchovni
    ... In addition to recipient lists, you need mailstore locations, and transport settings, ... to actually deliver the mail. ... This is for the relay
    Message 1 of 12 , Feb 1, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 07:11:52PM +0100, Ignacio Garcia wrote:

      > > This splits into two use-cases:
      > >
      > > * Relay
      > >
      > > - Each server accepts mail for the other's domains, and relays
      > > them to the right server. All you need is access to a table
      > > of valid recipients for the relay domains, and table of
      > > said domain names.
      > >
      > > * Full-service:
      > >
      > > - Each server accepts mail for all the domains, and delivers
      > > to the correct mail store. Need fully unified data model.
      > >
      > > Which use-case are you aiming for?
      > >
      >
      > definitely full-service. I do not understand whan you say that I need a
      > fully unified data model.

      In addition to recipient lists, you need mailstore locations, and
      transport settings, ... to actually deliver the mail.

      > >> - both servers need to check against both databases for valid
      > >> destinations
      > >
      > > Correct (s/destinations/user-addresses/).
      >
      > ypu're right.
      >
      > >> - each server must know if delivery is to be local or it has to be
      > >> relayed to the other server.
      > >
      > > Postfix does that automatically. Just add the domain to "relay_domains"
      > > and not to virtual_mailbox_domains, or similar.
      >
      > ok.

      This is for the "relay" use-case.

      > >> - one server virtual_transport=maildrop (to courier-imap), the other
      > >> =dovecot (we are going with dovecot for the future, the one with courier
      > >> is older, but plenty of users)
      > >
      > > The difference in final delivery mechanisms is immaterial.
      >
      > Great!!!

      Sorry, for the full-service use case, both sets of SMTP servers
      need to support both delivery mechanisms and choose the correct
      one for each user.

      Ideally it would be LMTP for both, and the IMAP servers would handle
      the delivery logistics.

      > So, can you point me to the right direction in learning how to get the
      > full-service configuration done?

      Learn about virtual_alias rewriting or per-user transports in
      ADDRESS_REWRITING_README.html. Strongly consider using LMTP for
      all MTA -> Mail store deliveries, so that the MTA does not need
      to understand the internal architecture of the IMAP store.

      --
      Viktor.
    • Ignacio Garcia
      Viktor, thanks very much. I ll be reading about all this and hopefully will be asking some more questions once I have more knowledge of this. Ignacio On Tue, 1
      Message 2 of 12 , Feb 1, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Viktor, thanks very much. I'll be reading about all this and hopefully
        will be asking some more questions once I have more knowledge of this.

        Ignacio


        On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 13:20:07 -0500, Victor Duchovni
        <Victor.Duchovni@...> wrote:
        > On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 07:11:52PM +0100, Ignacio Garcia wrote:
        >
        >> > This splits into two use-cases:
        >> >
        >> > * Relay
        >> >
        >> > - Each server accepts mail for the other's domains, and relays
        >> > them to the right server. All you need is access to a table
        >> > of valid recipients for the relay domains, and table of
        >> > said domain names.
        >> >
        >> > * Full-service:
        >> >
        >> > - Each server accepts mail for all the domains, and delivers
        >> > to the correct mail store. Need fully unified data model.
        >> >
        >> > Which use-case are you aiming for?
        >> >
        >>
        >> definitely full-service. I do not understand whan you say that I need a
        >> fully unified data model.
        >
        > In addition to recipient lists, you need mailstore locations, and
        > transport settings, ... to actually deliver the mail.
        >
        >> >> - both servers need to check against both databases for valid
        >> >> destinations
        >> >
        >> > Correct (s/destinations/user-addresses/).
        >>
        >> ypu're right.
        >>
        >> >> - each server must know if delivery is to be local or it has to be
        >> >> relayed to the other server.
        >> >
        >> > Postfix does that automatically. Just add the domain to "relay_domains"
        >> > and not to virtual_mailbox_domains, or similar.
        >>
        >> ok.
        >
        > This is for the "relay" use-case.
        >
        >> >> - one server virtual_transport=maildrop (to courier-imap), the other
        >> >> =dovecot (we are going with dovecot for the future, the one with courier
        >> >> is older, but plenty of users)
        >> >
        >> > The difference in final delivery mechanisms is immaterial.
        >>
        >> Great!!!
        >
        > Sorry, for the full-service use case, both sets of SMTP servers
        > need to support both delivery mechanisms and choose the correct
        > one for each user.
        >
        > Ideally it would be LMTP for both, and the IMAP servers would handle
        > the delivery logistics.
        >
        >> So, can you point me to the right direction in learning how to get the
        >> full-service configuration done?
        >
        > Learn about virtual_alias rewriting or per-user transports in
        > ADDRESS_REWRITING_README.html. Strongly consider using LMTP for
        > all MTA -> Mail store deliveries, so that the MTA does not need
        > to understand the internal architecture of the IMAP store.

        --
        Ignacio Garcia
        Gerente
        E.S. Oenus SL
        Tel: 962 961 017
        SkypeID: oenus.com
        http://www.oenus.com
      • Daniel Bromberg
        ... Speaking not as a Postfix expert but as a DBA, and speaking more on administrative strategy rather than technically, I would consider merging the two
        Message 3 of 12 , Feb 1, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          On 2/1/2011 12:50 PM, Ignacio Garcia wrote:
          >> You are not thinking very clearly yet. You must distinguish clearly
          >> between:
          >>
          >> - Submission, users submitting mail for outgoing delivery. This is
          >> visible to users, since they set the server in question as their
          >> MUAs "SMTP server". This needs its own design, and it is what I
          >> thought you wanted help with.
          >>
          >> - Inbound MX service. Just publish appropriate MX records, and add
          >> front-end SMTP servers to each of the two environments as necessary.
          >> In ISP-grade implementations the SMTP inbound servers are not also
          >> IMAP servers, rather they forward mail to IMAP servers (via LMTP
          >> or SMTP).
          >>
          >> Which do you need help with? State clear requirements for either or
          >> each problem, and work from there.
          >
          > yes, you're right, sorry. Maybe if I tell you what I want to do I can
          > make myself clearer. We have both a submission service and inbound mx
          > service. we want to have a unified smtp.mycompany.com so all
          > "submissions" can be processed using this canonical domain name. i
          > believe that is not too dificult. We also want to run both servers so 1
          > is mx-backup of the other and viceversa. However, I forsee several
          > problems here:
          >
          > - both servers need to check against both databases for valid
          > destinations
          > - each server must know if delivery is to be local or it has to be
          > relayed to the other server.
          > - one server virtual_transport=maildrop (to courier-imap), the other
          > =dovecot (we are going with dovecot for the future, the one with courier
          > is older, but plenty of users)
          >
          > So, is there any hope?
          >
          > Ignacio
          Speaking not as a Postfix expert but as a DBA, and speaking more on
          administrative strategy rather than technically, I would consider
          merging the two databases. This is just a guess that the two servers are
          running under the same organizational umbrella and that the DB's serve a
          similar purpose for a single organization. Ugliness will grow and grow
          around accommodating two databases that should be one.

          The unified DB would have a "server_a_user_table" and a
          "server_b_user_table" ([much] better yet, a unified table with a server
          tag column so arbitrary servers can be added ultimately). Then you have
          the flexibility to distinguish a local user lookup versus a relay lookup
          on each server by configuring each of transport queries appropriately.
          (Hint:
          http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/control-flow-functions.html#function_if)

          Do the painful merging steps now and grow a sensible architecture that
          can last for years. All kinds of dust will get rooted out in the
          process. Optimistically your business will only need to add servers. An
          obvious initial benefit is the simplified backup and monitoring
          requirements.

          Then as others have mentioned, the MySQL architecture can be replicated,
          tuned, and accessed remotely with appropriate security settings. It can
          even be replicated while live by setting it to read-only during initial
          replication.

          I believe efficiency in a replicated setting will still be very high.
          Mail is very heavily read-oriented for DB's: settings/user migration/new
          users don't change that much but there are 10^n lookups a day.

          -Daniel
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.