On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 10:41:08AM -0400, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users:
> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 02:20:55PM -0400, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
> > wrote:
> > > Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users:
> > > > That's fine, the SRV records can be keyed
Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 02:20:55PM -0400, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
> wrote:
> > Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users:
> > > That's fine, the SRV records can be keyed by destination domain.
> >
> > Locally-managed SRV records, keyed by the final destination
On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 02:20:55PM -0400, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote:
> Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users:
> > That's fine, the SRV records can be keyed by destination domain.
>
> Locally-managed SRV records, keyed by the final destination domain
> name, to select a local relay host?
Y
Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users:
> That's fine, the SRV records can be keyed by destination domain.
Locally-managed SRV records, keyed by the final destination domain
name, to select a local relay host?
Wietse
___
Postfix-users mailing list --
On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 05:22:52PM +, Colin McKinnon wrote:
> > What kind of "load balancing"? Why won't MX records do? For uneven
> > weights, you can even use SRV records:
>
> I'm trying to setup load balancing across a cluster of relays for a
> S
Hi Viktor,
Wietse also replied to say I wasn't able to solve this with Postfix.
>
> What kind of "load balancing"? Why won't MX records do? For uneven
> weights, you can even use SRV records:
>
I'm trying to setup load balancing across a cluster of r
On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 01:52:42PM +, Colin McKinnon via Postfix-users
wrote:
> I want to provision load balancing for my relays.
What kind of "load balancing"? Why won't MX records do? For uneven
weights, you can even use SRV records:
use_srv_lookup =
Colin McKinnon via Postfix-users:
> Hi,
>
> I want to provision load balancing for my relays. The catch is that
> there is already some customized routing in place based on recipient
> domain and large block lists. These are currently handled by a
> transport map.
>
&g
x27;ll
> come back here if I get stuck)
>
> Colin
>
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 at 13:52, Colin McKinnon wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I want to provision load balancing for my relays. The catch is that
> > there is already some customized routing in place ba
ar 2024 at 13:52, Colin McKinnon wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I want to provision load balancing for my relays. The catch is that
> there is already some customized routing in place based on recipient
> domain and large block lists. These are currently handled by a
> transport map.
>
&
Hi,
I want to provision load balancing for my relays. The catch is that
there is already some customized routing in place based on recipient
domain and large block lists. These are currently handled by a
transport map.
I would prefer not to implement 2 layers of relays. If this were
implemented
Le 30/05/2023 à 16:07, Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users a écrit :
Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users skrev den 2023-05-30 14:30:
There's no good reason to have mail sent to mx2 unless mx1 is down.
and subject says load balancing, not backup mx
imho OP asked not to have mx backup, but
On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 04:07:32PM +0200, Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users
wrote:
> > There's no good reason to have mail sent to mx2 unless mx1 is down.
Under the proviso that "mx1" is the mail store. The mail has to go
there anyway, so it may as well get there in one
Viktor Dukhovni via Postfix-users skrev den 2023-05-30 14:30:
There's no good reason to have mail sent to mx2 unless mx1 is down.
and subject says load balancing, not backup mx
imho OP asked not to have mx backup, but load balancing, in with case
HA-Proxy would help more
also if
On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 08:20:20PM +0800, t...@dkinbox.com wrote:
> > In other words, where is the mail ultimately delivered for users to
> > read it?
>
> I have a primary mx server saying it's mx1.dkinbox.com, where mails are
> stored.
In that case, "load-balanci
> On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 07:18:01PM +0800, Tom Reed via Postfix-users
> wrote:
>
>> If I set up backup MX just the same weight as primary MX, can the two MX
>> servers work as load balancer for incoming emails?
>
> Will both then relay the mail to some other server for mailbox storage?
> Or are
On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 07:18:01PM +0800, Tom Reed via Postfix-users wrote:
> If I set up backup MX just the same weight as primary MX, can the two MX
> servers work as load balancer for incoming emails?
Will both then relay the mail to some other server for mailbox storage?
Or are mailboxes stor
> Tom Reed via Postfix-users:
>>
>> Hello
>>
>> If I set up backup MX just the same weight as primary MX, can the two MX
>> servers work as load balancer for incoming emails?
>
> The backup MX will need a transport map to route mail to the primary MX.
> See:
>
> http://www.postfix.org/STANDARD_C
Tom Reed via Postfix-users:
>
> Hello
>
> If I set up backup MX just the same weight as primary MX, can the two MX
> servers work as load balancer for incoming emails?
The backup MX will need a transport map to route mail to the primary MX.
See:
http://www.postfix.org/STANDARD_CONFIGURATION_REA
Hello
If I set up backup MX just the same weight as primary MX, can the two MX
servers work as load balancer for incoming emails?
Thank you.
--
Sent from https://dkinbox.com/
___
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscrib
Thanks! This is it.
-Original Message-
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org]
On Behalf Of Noel Jones
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 4:41 PM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: Load balancing
On 5/20/2016 2:15 AM, volodymyr.lytvyne
Noel:
Then I guess I've been doing this the hard way using a hardware load
balancer, one IP address, and two MX servers to handle mail delivery
duties...
On 2016-05-20 08:40, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 5/20/2016 2:15 AM, volodymyr.lytvyne...@unicredit.ua wrote:
>
>> Hi! How can I add a second do
Tuesday, December 01, 2015 4:31 PM
> To: Postfix users
> Subject: Re: Load balancing
>
> volodymyr.lytvyne...@unicredit.ua:
>> Hi!
>> There are the following configuration of the mail system.
>> Relay postfix and 2 identical Edge servers (Microsoft Exchange). Relay
&g
Hi! How can I add a second domain ukrsotsbank.com to load-balansing using
randmap ?
-Original Message-
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org]
On Behalf Of Wietse Venema
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 4:31 PM
To: Postfix users
Subject: Re: Load
Thanks !!!
-Original Message-
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org]
On Behalf Of Wietse Venema
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 4:31 PM
To: Postfix users
Subject: Re: Load balancing
volodymyr.lytvyne...@unicredit.ua:
> Hi!
> There a
volodymyr.lytvyne...@unicredit.ua:
> Hi!
> There are the following configuration of the mail system.
> Relay postfix and 2 identical Edge servers (Microsoft Exchange). Relay
> receives mail from the Edge servers and sent it to the Internet and receives
> mail from the Internet for my domain and f
Hi!
There are the following configuration of the mail system.
Relay postfix and 2 identical Edge servers (Microsoft Exchange). Relay receives
mail from the Edge servers and sent it to the Internet and receives mail from
the Internet for my domain and forwards it to the Edge server.
There is my tr
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 05:16:00PM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> The more mathematically astute among you might guess that "0.63"
> is close to the limiting ratio, and that the limit is the ever
> common "1 - 1/e". So the least frequent host is used at least 63%
> as often as the most frequent.
Wietse Venema:
> Tobias Gro?:
> > Besides the lack of randomization in the mail client, there is
> > another question: Should the mail client implement support for
> > multiple MX or implicit MX (A when no MX is given) records when
> > sending all traffic to smarthosts which are loadbalanced by DNS
Tobias Gro?:
> Besides the lack of randomization in the mail client, there is
> another question: Should the mail client implement support for
> multiple MX or implicit MX (A when no MX is given) records when
> sending all traffic to smarthosts which are loadbalanced by DNS
> regarding to the rfc 5
Viktor Dukhovni schrieb:
>On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 03:18:12PM +0100, Peer Heinlein wrote:
>
>> > We want to load balance mails from the intranet to the
>> > postfix-relayserver-farm for outgoing traffic.
>> > Can we abuse A-records to load-balance in the same way MX-records
>> > have been desig
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 03:18:12PM +0100, Peer Heinlein wrote:
> > We want to load balance mails from the intranet to the
> > postfix-relayserver-farm for outgoing traffic.
> > Can we abuse A-records to load-balance in the same way MX-records
> > have been designed?
>
> No, because in that case M
Am 13.01.2014 15:55, schrieb Bauer, Stefan (IZLBW Extern):
> Hi List,
>
> thank you for confirming my opinions about DNS for load balancing. I share
> your opinions.
>
> @Peer - your advice is to use MX records. I don't think, MX-records can be
> used for rela
MX records only apply to the destination FQDN for the email. Spoofing
the destined domain to force everything through the relays is not a good
idea.
Most load balancing of an outbound relay requires you to force or
manually configure the relay in your mail programs, to point to the load
Hi List,
thank you for confirming my opinions about DNS for load balancing. I share
your opinions.
@Peer - your advice is to use MX records. I don't think, MX-records can be used
for relayservers.
Our flow is:
Client -> Exchange - > Relayserver -> t...@example.com
I only
DNS is not meant for that. At least, not the DNS itself. It is
something that goes under another tool, called GSLB (Global Site Load
Balancer). It will add/remove DNS records based on test availability.
It is something that is widely used on the Internet.
--
Christian Tardif
Quoting "Bau
Wietse:
> Yes, if the sender is Postfix. Postfix will randomly select from
> equal-preference IP addresses and IP protocols. This is intentional,
> so that mail does not get stuck when one path is broken.
See also my second response with pointers to relevant Postfix
configuration parameters that c
Stefan,
* Bauer, Stefan (IZLBW Extern) :
> We want to load balance mails from the intranet to the
> postfix-relayserver-farm for outgoing traffic.
> Can we abuse A-records to load-balance in the same way MX-records have been
> designed?
>
>
> A relay.example.com 192.168.0.1
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 13.01.2014 14:23, schrieb Bauer, Stefan (IZLBW Extern):
Hi Stefan,
> We want to load balance mails from the intranet to the
postfix-relayserver-farm for outgoing traffic.
> Can we abuse A-records to load-balance in the same way MX-records
have been
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org]
Im Auftrag von Wietse Venema
Yes, if the sender is Postfix. Postfix will randomly select from
equal-preference IP addresses and IP protocols. This is intentional, so that
mail does not
Wietse Venema:
> Bauer, Stefan (IZLBW Extern):
> > Dear Developers/Users,
> >
> > We want to load balance mails from the intranet to the
> > postfix-relayserver-farm for outgoing traffic. Can we abuse
> > A-records to load-balance in the same way MX-records have been
> > designed?
>
> Yes, if th
Bauer, Stefan (IZLBW Extern):
> Dear Developers/Users,
>
> We want to load balance mails from the intranet to the
> postfix-relayserver-farm for outgoing traffic. Can we abuse
> A-records to load-balance in the same way MX-records have been
> designed?
Yes, if the sender is Postfix. Postfix will
Dear Developers/Users,
We want to load balance mails from the intranet to the postfix-relayserver-farm
for outgoing traffic.
Can we abuse A-records to load-balance in the same way MX-records have been
designed?
A relay.example.com 192.168.0.1
A relay.example.c
Am 20.11.2013 17:34, schrieb Roman Gelfand:
> I have created the following smtp load balancing setup
>
> lb1 (keepalived server) host mx...
telnet 192.168.0.244 25 or telnet 192.168.0.245 25 from a
workstation on lan or from 192.168.0.249, it works.
Any help is appreciated.
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 11:56 AM, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 11:34:45AM -0500, Roman Gelfand wrote:
>> I have created the following
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 11:34:45AM -0500, Roman Gelfand wrote:
> I have created the following smtp load balancing setup
What kind of load do you wish to balance? Inbound load?
> lb1 (keepalived server) host mx... i
I have created the following smtp load balancing setup
lb1 (keepalived server) host mx... ip .249
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 01:37:08PM -0700, Florin Andrei wrote:
> On 07/06/2010 01:10 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
>>
>> So you have multiple exit points with non-uniform latency, but the more
>> severe congestion is downstream, so you want to load the exit points
>> uniformly. Yes, the solution is
On 07/06/2010 01:10 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
So you have multiple exit points with non-uniform latency, but the more
severe congestion is downstream, so you want to load the exit points
uniformly. Yes, the solution is to disable the connection cache, and
set reasonably low connection and helo
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 01:00:14PM -0700, Florin Andrei wrote:
> Having multiple exit points seems to improve the overall delivery speed -
> this is true even right now, when distribution is skewed to the faster
> server 4:1. My estimate is, a near-1:1 distribution would actually fix our
> time
On 07/06/2010 12:27 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
If you want to deliver the same number of messages to each server,
regardless of server performance, (message-count fairness, rather than
concurrency fairness), and suffer high latency when a slow server starts
to impede message flow, then turning o
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 12:10:41PM -0700, Florin Andrei wrote:
> I realize that email delivery is not a trivial problem, but it seems
> baffling that a seemingly simple task ("fair" volume-based load balancing
> between transports) is so hard to achieve.
If you want to deli
) slow servers.
I see.
I realize that email delivery is not a trivial problem, but it seems
baffling that a seemingly simple task ("fair" volume-based load
balancing between transports) is so hard to achieve.
A very dumb algorithm should accomplish it: single-threaded delivery (no
concu
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 11:21:19AM -0700, Florin Andrei wrote:
> On 06/30/2010 11:17 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
>> When sending mail via SMTP, Postfix randomizes the order of
>> equal-preference server IP addresses.
>>
>> However, with SMTP connection caching enabled, the faster SMTP
>> server will
On 06/30/2010 11:17 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
When sending mail via SMTP, Postfix randomizes the order of
equal-preference server IP addresses.
However, with SMTP connection caching enabled, the faster SMTP
server will get more mail than the slower SMTP server.
It seems you imply that disabling
Florin Andrei:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't seem possible with Postfix. I
> couldn't find any setting that says "cut off delivery after N messages".
That would actually make your problem worse. When one host is slower
than the other, and connections are closed after a fixed number
When sending mail via SMTP, Postfix randomizes the order of
equal-preference server IP addresses.
However, with SMTP connection caching enabled, the faster SMTP
server will get more mail than the slower SMTP server.
So, you need to be a little more careful with your claims.
Wietse
htly faster hardware - not sure if that matters.
One way to do equal-volume load balancing would be to tell the initial
Postfix instance to only send, like, 10 or 100 messages through any
given SMTP connection to the nexthops, then hang off and connect again.
Due to the way DNS works,
I did round robin. Unless your servers are really under a high load I think
this is more then suitable.
James
On Feb 16, 2010, at 8:51 AM, donovan jeffrey j wrote:
>
> On Feb 16, 2010, at 8:09 AM, aa wrote:
>
>> Someone advised me to insert in the DNS zone a list of MX records
>> defined
s defective for real load
balancing. The client choose the IP to use, this is "random", and
after can use the same ip for a while... this is not random.
The real solution is lvs or keepalived, the choice of the node is done
by the load balancer...
A broken client that can't be both
Use your favorite load-balance app. You have several options in BSD or
GNU/Linux flavors. Personally I use with total success LVS+heartbeat to
load-balance 3 Posfifix (only to send) with 70k account behind.
;)
Le 16/02/2010 17:47, donovan jeffrey j a écrit :
DNS round robin is bad, it works but is defective for real load
balancing. The client choose the IP to use, this is "random", and
after can use the same ip for a while... this is not random.
Again, I am doing every days exactly what r
On 16/02/2010 15:53, Eero Volotinen wrote:
Well, It is bad because server (client) can cache ip address for long
time and then one of your smtp server fails. It can take long time
before server gets ip address of working smtp server..
The client is faulty in that case. If it fails to contact
a dns name smtp, and your system will round robin query for the
> > next available server.
>
> DNS round robin is bad, it works but is defective for real load
> balancing. The client choose the IP to use, this is "random", and
> after can use the same ip for a while... th
a more scientific one
>>>
>>> very easy for smtp relays.
>>> smtp1
>>> smtp2
>>> create a dns name smtp, and your system will round robin query for the
>>> next available server.
>>
>> DNS round robin is bad, it works but is defecti
nd robin is bad, it works but is defective for real load
balancing. The client choose the IP to use, this is "random", and
after can use the same ip for a while... this is not random.
The real solution is lvs or keepalived, the choice of the node is done
by the load balancer...
Bye.
Depends on how many public IP addresses you have. I'd like recommend you
to have a try with keepalived. It's the balancing service software. Open
source. The front-end service keepalived will handle TCP request and
forward to the back-end servers you have. You can also setup the filter
also. Pr
e server.
DNS round robin is bad, it works but is defective for real load
balancing. The client choose the IP to use, this is "random", and
after can use the same ip for a while... this is not random.
The real solution is lvs or keepalived, the choice of the node is done
by the load balancer...
Bye.
<>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Feb 16, 2010, at 8:09 AM, aa wrote:
Someone advised me to insert in the DNS zone a list of MX records
defined with the same level of priority so the DNS server will
choose one of them without invoking always the same mail server
It could be an idea, in my opinion, but I'd prefer a "le
Le 16/02/2010 15:09, aa a écrit :
Someone advised me to insert in the DNS zone a list of MX records
defined with the same level of priority so the DNS server will choose
one of them without invoking always the same mail server
It could be an idea, in my opinion, but I'd prefer a "less ran
2010/2/16 aa :
> Hi,
> I need to create an infrastructure that allows to divide a list of mails to
> send among a series of postfix mail servers.
>
> For example, I imagine this situation so :
> I install a series of postfix mail servers and when it's necessary to send a
> mail it's enough to send
Hi,
I need to create an infrastructure that allows to divide a list of mails to
send among a series of postfix mail servers.
For example, I imagine this situation so :
I install a series of postfix mail servers and when it's necessary to send a
mail it's enough to send it to an IP address that th
Wietse Venema:
> ram:
> >
> > On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 14:43 +0100, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> >
> > > * ram [25/01/2010 14:41] :
> > > >
> > > > All mails are sent by a postfix server and this box has to relay the
> > > > mails to 3 load balanced machines.
> > > > No windows machines in the picture
ram:
>
> On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 14:43 +0100, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
>
> > * ram [25/01/2010 14:41] :
> > >
> > > All mails are sent by a postfix server and this box has to relay the
> > > mails to 3 load balanced machines.
> > > No windows machines in the picture at all
> >
> > What is the DNS
On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 14:43 +0100, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> * ram [25/01/2010 14:41] :
> >
> > All mails are sent by a postfix server and this box has to relay the
> > mails to 3 load balanced machines.
> > No windows machines in the picture at all
>
> What is the DNS server? On what OS is it
ram:
> On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 06:00 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > ram:
> > > I try load balancing using a relayhost to a DNS A record with multiple
> > > IP's
> > > But I find that somehosts *always* get more mails than others
> > >
* ram [25/01/2010 14:41] :
>
> All mails are sent by a postfix server and this box has to relay the
> mails to 3 load balanced machines.
> No windows machines in the picture at all
What is the DNS server? On what OS is it running?
Emmanuel
On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 06:00 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> ram:
> > I try load balancing using a relayhost to a DNS A record with multiple
> > IP's
> > But I find that somehosts *always* get more mails than others
> > Doesnt help if I use MX records instead of A re
ram:
> I try load balancing using a relayhost to a DNS A record with multiple
> IP's
> But I find that somehosts *always* get more mails than others
> Doesnt help if I use MX records instead of A records
>
>
> How do I do fair loadbalancing with postfix
ht
On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 08:59 +0100, Bjørn Ruberg wrote:
> ram wrote:
> > I try load balancing using a relayhost to a DNS A record with multiple
> > IP's
> > But I find that somehosts *always* get more mails than others
>
> Are Windows DNS resolvers involved? If s
ram wrote:
I try load balancing using a relayhost to a DNS A record with multiple
IP's
But I find that somehosts *always* get more mails than others
Are Windows DNS resolvers involved? If so, see for instance this article
for a lead on why those resolvers think they know better than you
I try load balancing using a relayhost to a DNS A record with multiple
IP's
But I find that somehosts *always* get more mails than others
Doesnt help if I use MX records instead of A records
How do I do fair loadbalancing with postfix
Thanks
Ram
Osmany wrote:
Hi everyone,
I have two relay servers currently working with load balancing. I want
to configure both servers so that each MX relays only certain domain and
the rest of the mail throws it to the other MX. Here is the idea:
You can use a transport table entry as:
/etc/postfix
Osmany wrote:
Hi everyone,
I have two relay servers currently working with load balancing. I want
to configure both servers so that each MX relays only certain domain and
the rest of the mail throws it to the other MX. Here is the idea:
I want one MX to get all the mail and throw to the other
Hi everyone,
I have two relay servers currently working with load balancing. I want
to configure both servers so that each MX relays only certain domain and
the rest of the mail throws it to the other MX. Here is the idea:
I want one MX to get all the mail and throw to the other MX all the mail
Victor Duchovni:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:53:07AM -0400, Adam Mason wrote:
>
> > ifconfig lo0 1.2.3.4 netmask 255.255.0.0 -arp up
>
> Leave the *primary* IP address of lo0 as 127.0.0.1, add "1.2.3.4"
> (examples really should use 192.0.2.0/24 addresses) as a secondary
> IP address for lo0. Co
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:53:07AM -0400, Adam Mason wrote:
> ifconfig lo0 1.2.3.4 netmask 255.255.0.0 -arp up
Leave the *primary* IP address of lo0 as 127.0.0.1, add "1.2.3.4"
(examples really should use 192.0.2.0/24 addresses) as a secondary
IP address for lo0. Commands for adding secondary IPs
Adam Mason:
> Sep 29 10:45:38 {hostname} postfix/smtpd[39862]: warning: problem talking to
> server 127.0.0.1:10023: Permission denied
If you configure lo0 to be something other than 127.0.0.1,
then what interface listens on the 127.0.0.1 address?
Wietse
up to use load balancing aren't using postgrey, which
is probably why I haven't run into this connection issue yet with them.
I'm still fairly new to postfix, unix, and networking, so any help /
direction would be greatly appreciated.
- A.M.
up to use load balancing aren't using postgrey, which
is probably why I haven't run into this connection issue yet with them.
I'm still fairly new to postfix, unix, and networking, so any help /
direction would be greatly appreciated.
- A.M.
90 matches
Mail list logo
