Re: two instances of postfix

D. Walsh wrote:
>
> On May 28, 2005, at 12:04 AM, Victor Duchovni wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 06:05:53PM -0400, D. Walsh wrote:
>>
>>
>>> mustangrestomods:~ websrvr$ postconf -c /etc/postfix -n
>>> inet_interfaces = all
>>>
>>> mustangrestomods:~ websrvr$ postconf -c /etc/postfixalt -n
>>> inet_interfaces = 10.1.100.11
>>>
>>
>> On many systems binding "all" interfaces (0/0) precludes, for good
>> security reasons, later binding some of the interfaces for the same port
>> in another process. So you must exclude the 10.1.100.11 inteface from
>> the inet_interaces list of the default Postfix instance.
>>
>> --
>> Viktor.
>
>
> OK now at least it's attempting to run and shows activity in the logs.
>
> May 28 14:24:16 dellc postfix/master[11192]: fatal: bind 127.0.0.1 port
> 10025: Address already in use
>
you are trying to run two independent smtpd processes to listen on the
same IP and port. use different ports. for instance use 10025 for the
first instance and 11025 for the second instance. of course, configure
amavisd (one or two?) accordingly.

>
> I have the amavisd content filter stuff defined in both, will the
> second postfix still use it if I remove the content filter entries
> completely from the second postfix or do I just need to remove the
> following?

There are 3 cases:
- you need to filter only for one instance. if so, use amavis only in
one instance
- you need to filter in both, but filtered mail can go to whatever smtpd
(choose one). if so, run one amavisd
- you need to filter in both, and after filtering, mail should "stay in
the same instance". if so, run amavisd twice, using two different ports,
and configure each to forward filtered email to the _right_ smtpd.




>
> Also, you mentioned something about "syslog_name", I take it this is to
> write to a second mail log file,

no, this will write to the same file with another name. the goal is to
get something like
...... postfix1/smtpd[123]: ....
...... postfix2/smtpd[456]: ....
This way, you know which one is logging.

what needs to be done for this to work
> or will it still work writing to a single log file?
>
>