On 2023-05-22 at 19:53:11 UTC-0400 (Tue, 23 May 2023 07:53:11 +0800)
Tom Reed via Postfix-users <t...@dkinbox.com>
is rumored to have said:
PS: Why do you (think you) need a backup MX?
Hello
I am not sure why I need a backup mx indeed,
If you don't know why you want the added complexity, you do not want the
added complexity. (See Also: "Cargo Cult")
but if you make a simple dig,
you find gmail, fastmail, protonmail, comcast, free.fr those big
providers
do have backup MXs.
And they handle thousands of simultaneous SMTP sessions 24x7x365. Do you
need that sort of scale?
Though yahoo, outlook don't have backup MX as a comparison.
Right, because multiple MXs are really NOT made necessary by scale,
that's just a feature of some possible scaling architectures.
The historical justification for the complexity of MX records was the
Internet of the 1980s. That complexity (or robustness, if you prefer)
turned out to be useful in the scaling of mail to hundreds of millions
of users in thousands of domains in essentially unified systems with
very high availability to 100% of the open Internet. If you do not have
connectivity like the 1980s or scale like Google or GMX, you should have
some *architectural* justification for a backup MX.
--
Bill Cole
b...@scconsult.com or billc...@apache.org
(AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses)
Not Currently Available For Hire
_______________________________________________
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
