On 08/05/2010 11:57 AM, Jeroen Geilman wrote: > On 08/01/2010 08:42 PM, Mike Morris wrote: >> On 08/01/2010 02:37 AM, Jeroen Geilman wrote: >> >>> On 08/01/2010 04:11 AM, Mike Morris wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> 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. >>> Simple. >>> >> 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.
I am aware that from the perspective of an MTA, all mail comes in and 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. > >> 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 ? I've set up mail systems using both approaches. It isn't always 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 = 2.8-20100707 >>>> >>>> >>> UNSTABLE. >>> sheesh. >>> >>> >> 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). I was wondering if this was going to be your response. I find it 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? -Mike
