Re: mailserver using dfbsd

[Ferruccio Zamuner <nonsolosoft@xxxxxxxx>]

Thank Matthew Dillon, Bill Hacker, Geert Hendrickx to reply to my out of topic question:
> > As they should be. Most alternatives are more effective and don't need the overhead OR the DB of 
> > greylisting.
> >                  Bill

> :Run an *SQL server on either host (or
> :on a dedicated third one) and let both mailservers use/maintain the same
> :database over the network.
> :
> :	Geert
>
> If you don't like pulling a greylist once an hour or once a minute or 
> however, then just push live updates with a UDP broadcast and do a lazy
> synchronization to catch anything that was missed.
>
> If you want things to run efficiently, each SMTP processing host needs
> to operate independantly.  Otherwise any failure can bottleneck the
> entire system.  Having a single data server can and will bottleneck
> the system as well as create a single point of failure.  It's a really
> bad idea.  Keep it simple and design the system robustly.
>
> 					-Matt

Of course greylist is not the only available antispam weapon, but it's a valuable piece
(I like mailtraps, honeypot, milters, blacklists, spf, regex, domainnamekeys while I don't like bayesian filters and everything that makes false positives).

I was asking if there was already in dfbsd something to share a fs or some memories in a fault
tollerant way where to store shared data. 
I agree that live update via UDP broadcast is probably the better and portable solution for
greylist data.

I'll look forward about next your cluster effort and ZFS implementation.

Have fun,              \fer