On 09/01/2012 08:17 PM, BC wrote: > > > I think I understand what you are saying. > > My local LAN is quite simple: only one *nix box and it sits between > the internet source and the rest of the machines on my LAN. That one > box contains two NICs - the public (WAN-side NIC) and the private > (LAN-side NIC) and runs spamdyke (as well as myriad other processes > including qmail). The LAN-side NIC is the 10.0.0.1 IP and that is > where the resolving cache runs. The "box" owns the 127.0.0.1 IP, > right, just as every over box on the LAN has its own 127.0.0.1 (local > host)?
Right. > I'm presuming that if I had a second *nix box on the LAN and was > running spamdyke over there, then I'd potentially be creating a lag > time in responsiveness. True. > Am I understanding what you are saying? Yep. > PS - my email server has only one customer, me. That's how I started as well. :) You might want to consider putting an IPCop (or other suitable firewall) host on your perimeter. I think it's the next logical step for your situation. > > On 9/1/2012 8:38 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> I think the question might have been (as I read it) regarding a >> configuration where the resolver is on the local network (private lan), >> but not on the host which is running spamdyke (not accessible as >> 127.0.0.1). This is not as ideal as having the resolver running on >> spamdyke's host, as all DNS traffic hits the wire in this case. However, >> cached requests don't make it out to the ISP, so it would help in that >> regard. If your LAN isn't hurting for bandwidth, this setup could be >> sufficient, but it's not ideal. >> >> I hope this makes sense. -- -Eric 'shubes' _______________________________________________ spamdyke-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
