At 4:32 pm +0100 13/2/99, Peter van Dijk wrote:
>On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 02:35:10PM +0000, Richard Letts wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, Peter van Dijk wrote:
>>
>> > 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?
>>
>> the secondary MX
>
>Err... come again?
I belive richard means that the secondary mx will sit there uselessly trying to
deliver to the nonexistant primary mx.
Which is why the secondary needs to be modified only to deliver when primary is up.
>Ok.. let me rephrase my question: do you know one MTA which is so stupid that it will
>not deliver to a secondary MX if the primary MX is down?
not one worth using.
peter
--
peter at gradwell dot com; online @ http://www.gradwell.com/
"To look back all the time is boring. Excitement lies in tomorrow"
