atom feed15 messages in net.sourceforge.lists.courier-usersRe: [courier-users] Re: Multi-site th...
FromSent OnAttachments
Sander Holthaus - Orange XLAug 22, 2004 11:11 am 
Sam VarshavchikAug 22, 2004 12:07 pm 
Sander Holthaus - Orange XLAug 22, 2004 12:37 pm 
Robert PfisterAug 22, 2004 8:55 pm 
Jerry AmundsonAug 26, 2004 9:03 am 
Ben KennedyAug 26, 2004 2:08 pm 
Sam VarshavchikAug 26, 2004 3:45 pm 
Georg LutzAug 26, 2004 3:48 pm 
Ben KennedyAug 26, 2004 4:31 pm 
Jacob S. BarrettAug 27, 2004 10:38 am 
Jerry AmundsonAug 27, 2004 11:18 am 
Sam VarshavchikAug 27, 2004 3:36 pm 
Jerry AmundsonAug 28, 2004 8:14 am 
Jerry AmundsonAug 28, 2004 9:37 am 
Ben KennedyAug 30, 2004 7:03 am 
Subject:Re: [courier-users] Re: Multi-site theory (sort of long)
From:Jerry Amundson (
Date:Aug 27, 2004 11:18:01 am

On Thursday 26 August 2004 05:44 pm, Sam Varshavchik wrote:

Jerry Amundson writes:

This way, if the Internet goes down at either site, only Internet e-mail at that site is affected, whereas, currently, Internet downtime creates many problems (of course).

Crazy? Perhaps, but rsync'ing shouldn't cause any problems because of the unique file names, and it's --delete option should preserve the Maildir structure across to the "mirror" server, right? Our main office only has about 100 employee's, so the T1 bandwidth should suffice...

If one of the lines goes down and everyone switches over to using the rsync-ed mailboxes on the other server, then when service is restored the first rsync will obliterate any changes made to the rsync-ed copies of the mailboxes.

I'll have to do something creative to not allow that to happen, maybe something with rsync's --include to have the server's only mirror what it's delivered (as the hostname is in the filename...). I'll sort that out later...

Or, it's possible that a fractional T1 between the two offices may be cheaper than a pair of backup low-bandwidth circuits. Except that a backhoe incident in the immediate neighborhood will likely take out both circuits.

I should clarify - it's been mandated that I put a server in the remote location... or else we move to Exchange.

Folks in the remote office, about 25 users all using IMAP via Outlook 2000, were seeing intermitent response degradation, the cause of which I have been unable to pinpoint. The frustration level has gotten pretty high there, so it has been decided they get their own server.