On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 02:28:38PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Victor Duchovni:
> > On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 01:45:25PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >
> > > Patrick Saweikis:
> > > > We are now trying to incorporate a way to create redundancy
> > > > on the relay end, so currently we may just have the transport map set to
> > > > "smtp:[10.1.1.7]" and are trying to find a way to tell it that if it
> > > > cannot relay to the transport_maps location, try this other. I had done
> > >
> > > Try using smtp_fallback_relay=smtp:[1.2.3.4] in main.cf, or "-o
> > > smtp_fallback_relay=smtp:[1.2.3.4]" in master.cf. The second form
> > > takes no spaces around the "=".
> >
> > But, you also may need to make sure that the primary nexthop does not
> > do hard 5XX rejects.
>
> Where did the OP say that this is an MUA-to-ISP scenario?
Perhaps I am mixing up threads. Is this the OP with the two ISP and the
DSL line that fails from time to time... ?
--
Viktor.
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.
To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit
http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below:
<mailto:majord...@postfix.org?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users>
If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not
send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put
"It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.
