moving on (multiple future forks)

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 08:59:29PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 11:52:36AM +0100, oshwm wrote:
> > Better still would be a way for any number of list servers to co-exist without delivering multiple copies of mail.
> > 
> > This would allow anyone to set up another server at will and add robustness to the system.
> > 
> > Is this already in existence or a new idea, is it even a valid idea?
> 
> Some "enterprisey" thing would work the mail server as a distributed
> fault tolerant event queueing framework. Dunno if this has been done
> with email "events" - if one knew what one was doing, this would
> probably be "just a plugin" for an existing event queueing framework.
> 
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/HA+Client+Event+Queues
> 
> http://atomix.io/atomix/
> 
> http://techblog.bozho.net/you-probably-dont-need-a-message-queue/
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZeroMQ

- MX records can provide effective failover/ multipla MTA nodes:
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MX_Record

- git style "unique email identifiers"?
 - different email pathways means different headers,
   thus In-reply-to: header
 - multiple "email server nodes" should be able to create the same
   (bit for bit) monthly/ yearly .tbz archives