Thank You once again for Your support !
We can close that topic, I got all informations.
I really appreciate that mailing list and people which doing support on it
! :)
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Zalezny Niezalezny:
> > Hi,
> >
> > thank You for Your feedback.
>
Zalezny Niezalezny:
> Hi,
>
> thank You for Your feedback.
>
> Does this solution is also described by RFC ?
Load balancers are not described in the SMTP RFC. Nor does the RFC
say how an MTA must be implemented. The RFC gives requirements for
how different SMTP implementations can communicate wi
Hi,
thank You for Your feedback.
Does this solution is also described by RFC ?
I reviewed RFC but I see that SMTP loadbalancing should be done using DNS
with proper setup MX records.
With kind regards
Zalezny
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Zalezny Niezalezny:
> > Hi
Zalezny Niezalezny:
> Hi,
>
> I have a question regarding Domain MX record and physical SMTP Loadbalancer.
>
> In my infrastructure we have several Postfix machines with local mailboxes.
> Each system sending messages to relay servers using internal relay domains
> with MX records. My team collea
Hi,
I have a question regarding Domain MX record and physical SMTP Loadbalancer.
In my infrastructure we have several Postfix machines with local mailboxes.
Each system sending messages to relay servers using internal relay domains
with MX records. My team colleague told me that we will not use a
