On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 01:10:20PM +0000, Richard Letts wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, Peter Gradwell wrote:
>
> > Second to that, perhaps you could make them primary MX, so that mail is
> > delivered directly to them if poss, but on fall back, it comes to you,
> > and then you dleiver it using the above scenario.
>
> in general this is bad idea: the lowest valued MX should be one with a
> high degree of reliability and connectivity. if you're trying to deliver
> to a machine which is intermittantly connected then you get exponential
> back-of on elivery attempts by some hosts on the Internet, resulting in
> the mail possibly never being delviered (and complaints from the customer
> "it's their setup")
Err.. this is _very_ common practice, actually. I'm on a fixed-IP dialup, but I'm my
own primary MX nonetheless. Any mailhost failing to deliver to a secondary MX is Very
Broken(tm). Can you name one MTA which is that stupid?
Greetz, Peter.
--
.| Peter van Dijk
.| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
