[gtaSAGE-members] Secondary MXs and Spam policies.

[Robert Brockway]

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004, Adrian Chung wrote:

> Well, I've been wondering where the justification in having a
> secondary MX even is these days.  If most MTA's are well-behaved
> enough to retry for a reasonable period of time against a domain with

That's the big question - are they well behaved enough?  A lot more
software is used to run an MTA now than in the past and I do not trust
much of it.  Even if working properly many MTAs do not hold mail for long
at all.  My company runs multiple MTAs with the same spam killing
features.  At least one MX is outside North America too.  Short of a disk
crash on one of our boxes while the mail is queued we will get it
eventually.

> one MX record pointing to a server that's temporarily unreachable, why
> even bother having a secondary (or secondaries) that aren't just spam
> traps?

We've dropped all backup MXs that we don't own.

Cheers,
	Rob

-- 
Robert Brockway B.Sc. email: robert at timetraveller.org, rbrockway at uqconnect.net
Linux counter project ID #16440 (http://counter.li.org)
"The earth is but one country and mankind its citizens" -Baha'u'llah