mail server replication

Gerard Ceraso gerard at
Fri May 21 10:08:43 EDT 2004

Yeah, master slave sort of thing would work nice. If the server losses
an email or two that would be no problem. Plus I can always set up an MX
record for both servers so it would be delivered no matter what. This
way if one server goes down I have the other as a backup and if server
one catches on fire and I cannot get anything back I have server two,
and noone knows the difference. Its always good to have a backup :)


On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 09:23, Rob Siemborski wrote:
> On Fri, 21 May 2004, Paul Dekkers wrote:
> > Although I think Gerard likes to see both servers active at the same 
> > time, I think the (master-slave kind) synchronisation would be a nice 
> > thing to start with. On the other hand, if I see what offlineimap can 
> > do, I assume it must be possible with just 2 servers to synchronise 
> > folders in a proper way (when keeping some history and logs on both 
> > sides, of course...), am I wrong? (This looks again a bit like 
> > bi-directional synchronisation as with unison, instead of master->slave 
> > think as with rsync or so.)
> I'm not familiar with what offlineimap does, but it isn't possible to have 
> two servers syncing "in unison" without some user interaction to resolve 
> conflicts when they occur after a network partition.
> Obviously a master/slave situation is much easier to achieve.
> -Rob
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Rob Siemborski * Andrew Systems Group * Cyert Hall 207 * 412-268-7456
> Research Systems Programmer * /usr/contributed Gatekeeper
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url :

More information about the Info-cyrus mailing list