28 Dec
2008
28 Dec
'08
7:28 p.m.
Hi Alex,
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 06:35:33PM +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
Andy Smith wrote:
Mainly just to allow people the flexibility to integrate spamd (and
it was hoped clamd) how they want.
The only thing I can think of is configuring each
clamav box to use
a different port range and mapping all those ports on the load
balancer to the correct boxes. That's really horrible. Anyone got
any better ideas?
I might be missing the point here a little bit, but is there any reason
why you're not load-balancing via SMTP? Perhaps I'm assuming that everyone wanting ClamAV
and/or
SpamAssassin centrally is only going to be scanning mail, but it
seems to me like either offering an MX solution or an SMTP server
which accepts mail from the BitFolk network and resends it whence
it came post-scan would be easier to setup. This could still be
load-balanced via haproxy, but the internals of scanning then
would be inside boxes.
Hmm, wouldn't it be a lot harder for people to properly reject email
if they had to forward on to another mail server to find out if it
was spam or virus?
I already do MX for a few customers and it's a bit of an annoyance.
When their mail server is broken in some way I start getting double
bounces, I'm sometimes being asked where missing mail got to, people
expect too much for a free service.
To be honest I may bundle it all off to antibodymx.com or something,
this is far too much hassle.
Cheers,
Andy
--
http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
Encrypted mail welcome - keyid 0x604DE5DB