Am 17.02.2013 21:04, schrieb Michael Grimm:
On 17.02.2013, at 11:08, Timo Sirainen tss@iki.fi wrote:
There may be some other features that require unique hostnames in future. Anything where multiple Dovecot servers need to communicate between each others.
I'd like to come back to that issue in order to understand your statement cited below.
First of all: whenever you referred to "hostname" in this thread you have been using it as a synonym for the local part [1] of a FQDN, right?
I have both servers of mine configured to use identical local parts ("test") but different FQDN (aka "test.domainA.tldA" and "test.domainB.tldB"). Your fix has been to replace "my_hostname" by "my_hostdomain()", thus using "test.domainA.tldA" and "test.domainB.tldB" instead of "test", right?
If some day there is such generic communication between Dovecot servers I'm planning on enforcing this requirement.
Given that all my interpretations of your statements are correct I do have difficulties in understanding why a "generic communication between Dovecot servers" should be limited to enforcing different local parts of all Dovecot servers implied instead of different FQDN? That would make much more sense regarding uniqueness in hostnames, IMHO. Two servers like "dovecot.forget-about.it" and "dovecot.you-name.it" should be able to communicate generically, again: IMHO.
the better design would be if doveot generates some UUID at the first startup in a /etc/dovecot/uuid.conf if the file does not exist becasue it would make hostnames meaningless at all AND give you the option if you are knowing what you are doing to replace a machine with a newer one by rsync datadirs and the whole /etc/dovecot/