No kidding.
I'm looking forward to the donation that makes developing that possible.
-Rob
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Rob Siemborski * Andrew Systems Group * Cyert Hall 207 * 412-268-7456
Research Systems Programmer * /usr/contributed Gatekeeper
Any
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Its possible. Make sure you understand that you're doing this for the
> >shared namespace though, otherwise you almost certainly want a more
> >traditional IMAP proxy like perdition.
>
> The main advantage that we are interested in is that we would h
>Its possible. Make sure you understand that you're doing this for the
>shared namespace though, otherwise you almost certainly want a more
>traditional IMAP proxy like perdition.
The main advantage that we are interested in is that we would have two IMAP
connection points for clients located i
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >So, there's a partial failure, but the majority of the system survives.
>
> That sounds fine for me. Now I have the current configuration:
>
> 1 server at a colocation place and a few other servers at a hosting center,
> that would be two different ge
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> What would then happen to mails when the MUPDATE master server goes down ?
> Will mail be undelivered and be bounced back ? I would like to avoid the
> MUPDATE master server to become the single point of failure.
In the event of a mupdate server failu
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mu.edu> Subject: Re: MUPDA
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am a bit confused on where should be ran the MUPDATE master server,
> should it be running on a Front End server, Back End Server or maybe a
> seperate server ? The documentation is not very explicit about this I
> think.
>From the documentation (in