On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 04:01:25PM +0000, Richard Letts wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, 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?
> the secondary MX should not deliver to itself if it's the best preference
> reachable MTA.
It won't.
> > 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?
>
> no. however the seocndary MX will (unless configured specially)
> exponentially backoff delivery attempts to the primary MX. If you're going
Well configure it correctly then.
> to go to
> that effort (of specially configuring it) you might as well go the extra
> step and set it as the primary MX and configure it to avoid the DNS
> altogether. This benefits other sites, since they'll not waste time (and
> concurrency remotes) trying to connect to a system which is disconnected
> most of the time. the downside is an extra delviery delay whilst mail is
> relayed though the secondary MX, but given most dialup nodes (in the Uk
> atleast) are disconnected >50% of the time most of the inbound mail will
> do this anyway.
Ok you have a big point there, but I still prefer myself as primary MX, especially
since my connection (when active) is more reliable than that of my fallback MX (well
they have a shitty uplink. Also, they're running sendmail, which I despise).
Greetz, Peter.
--
.| Peter van Dijk
.| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
