From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 17 11:07:01 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54A3A16A407 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:07:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@gorlani.net) Received: from smtp5.aruba.it (smtpd3.aruba.it [62.149.128.208]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9C59313C45D for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:07:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@gorlani.net) Received: (qmail 9758 invoked by uid 89); 17 Jan 2007 11:06:57 -0000 Received: by simscan 1.1.0 ppid: 9748, pid: 9756, t: 0.0847s scanners: clamav: 0.88.4/m:40/d:1722 Received: from unknown (HELO Enigma) (gorlani@gorlani.com@194.244.115.129) by smtp5.aruba.it with SMTP; 17 Jan 2007 11:06:57 -0000 Message-ID: <000501c73a27$9d769b80$6601880a@Enigma> From: "freebsd" To: "FreeBSD Questions" Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:06:59 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Rating: smtp5.aruba.it 1.6.2 0/1000/N Subject: Balancing outgoing SMTP relay X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:07:01 -0000 Hi I have a simple question but googling does not lead to a valid/usable answer. I need to load balance OUTGOING emails. I have serveral smart hosts. I need my internal SMTP server to send mail using ALL of the smart hosts together, making some kind of load balancing (no need for wheighted one). Someone pointed out to use a name for the smart host, and have DNS to resolve that name to the IP of all the relays (multiple A records) but this turned out in doing failover, not load balancing. Anyone has a *working* idea for solving this apparently simple problem? Thanks