On 6/20/2008, Kevin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >>> Right... while there may be some corner cases where a backup mx >>> *might* actually be desired, in most cases, they are far more >>> troublethan they are worth.
>> Right, it makes more sense to have 2 or more MTAs which basically >> are clones of eachother, i.e. with the same functionality. A real >> backup would be a hotspare server, again a clone, which you can >> quickly put into action whenever needed. > I run a two incoming SMTP servers on separate providers for > redundancy. The only reason one has a lower priority is because it's > a slightly smaller pipe. > > I prefer having a second (live) server, if one fails I can usually > fix it at my leisure. Saves me much stress and is not really that > much work aside from initial setup. What I was talking about was using a backup mx that simply queued mail until the primary came back up... in todays internet, it provides very little benefit, since the servers attempting delivery will simply retry later anyway... Having a backup smtp server that can actually step in and REPLACE the funcitonality of your primary is another thing entirely, and I'm all for redundancy where practical... :) -- Best regards, Charles ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php _______________________________________________ Assp-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-user
