| 1 |
You could do this with postfix. Setup the "MAIN" server as a postfix |
| 2 |
mail gateway, and use your local server as the imap server. The |
| 3 |
messages will arrive at the "MAIN" server that your MX record points to |
| 4 |
(where they could be spam/virus filtered) and then would be immediately |
| 5 |
passed to the local network server (where users could access them via |
| 6 |
pop/imap). I don't know if this is what you are looking for as users |
| 7 |
would need access to the local network to even read their mail, and you |
| 8 |
would only have one persistent copy of the hosted mail (instead of the |
| 9 |
office being a secondary backup), but it would help to increase speed. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
--Kirk |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Claudinei Matos said the following: |
| 14 |
> Yeah, I saw that the problem is ocurring 'cause all the users share |
| 15 |
> the same ip which one is the ip of the internet gateway. |
| 16 |
> Anyway, with the new limit of connections everybody can retrieve mail |
| 17 |
> but some users are annoying me about the speed to access the server. |
| 18 |
> What I want is that the messages that arrive at my MAIN (the one at |
| 19 |
> the hoster) server could be redirected to my proxy/backup server (the |
| 20 |
> one at my local network) or if it could be, that the proxy/backup |
| 21 |
> connect to the main server to catch all the accounts messages. |
| 22 |
> I know I culd just use my local server as my MAIN MX but the problem |
| 23 |
> is that this server is connected to internet by a adsl not confiable |
| 24 |
> and with dynamic ip link. So I was thinking if I could setup this |
| 25 |
> local server as my primary MX with his dyndns hostname and put the |
| 26 |
> "old main" server as the backup MX, just in the case adsl link get |
| 27 |
> down. |
| 28 |
> I've also got a quick look at |
| 29 |
> http://www.courier-mta.org/imap/?README.proxy.html and I saw that I |
| 30 |
> can setup a proxy server to my users, but I don't know if that could |
| 31 |
> be a solution too. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Any advices would be appreciated. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> Tks, |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> Claudinei Matos |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> On 5/16/05, Jonathan Nichols <jnichols@×××.net> wrote: |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
>>Claudinei Matos wrote: |
| 42 |
>> |
| 43 |
>>>I was looking at this parameter when I got your mail. Actually it was |
| 44 |
>>>specified a limit of 4 connections. I tried to setup to 0 ( I mean it |
| 45 |
>>>could be no limit) but doesn't work, so for a test I did setup it to |
| 46 |
>>>30 connections and did some tests, and I saw that each folder that I |
| 47 |
>>>try to open in thunderbird open a new connection at the server. So if |
| 48 |
>>>I have 10 users trying to see his email and 5 of they try to open 2 |
| 49 |
>>>folders at the same time I will have 20 connections on the server. Is |
| 50 |
>>>that correct? |
| 51 |
>> |
| 52 |
>>Pretty much, yeah. but, it's per IP. I have mine set to 180 and haven't |
| 53 |
>>had any problems at all. :) |
| 54 |
>> |
| 55 |
>>-- |
| 56 |
>>gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
| 57 |
>> |
| 58 |
>> |
| 59 |
> |
| 60 |
> |
| 61 |
-- |
| 62 |
gentoo-server@g.o mailing list |
Archives