From: Simon Waters (simonwzynet.net)
Date: Wed Mar 01 2006 - 05:45:49 CST

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Wednesday 01 Mar 2006 11:15, Brendan Grossman wrote:
>
> It may be justifiable in my case. I have a postfix gateway that relays mail
> for internal UNIX clients. When the clients are shutdown at night or for
> even days (could even be weeks, if the user goes on on holidays etc), I'd
> like my gateway to hold their mail.

Don't use boxes as SMTP servers if they aren't highly available - you'll just
create a headache for yourself.

Imagine I sent an email, you'll hold it indefinitely - if the person never
switches on their box, I'll never know it was never received.

> Instead of local delivery, I could give them accounts and allow POP access
> or something on the gateway, but if each client has an MTA, they may as
> well use it?

I'd lose the unnecessary services and install POP3 or IMAP4 on a central
server in a jiffy. Do not needlessly multiply SMTP servers.

> To make matters worse, the internet connection for this network has a
> dynamic IP, so when the IP changes, I need to ensure mail doesn't bounce. I
> do have a script that updates DNS, but even though it's reasonably
> reliable, I'd still like a fallback solution.

Don't put an SMTP server on a dynamic IP address - you'll only create a
headache for yourself. If you've enough boxes to be worrying about such
things get a static IP address, it will be less work than trying to work
around it.

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]