On Tuesday 24 January 2006 22:38, Chris Knadle wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 January 2006 16:51, Michael Johnson wrote:
> > I really like using Exim, and recommend it in most cases. However,
> > I've started working at a place where they're using Postfix.
>
>The place I worked at insisted on Sendmail,
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 17:38 -0500, Chris Knadle wrote:
>The thing here is that you really want the secondary MX to have the user
> list of the primary so that don't end up having the secondary trying to push
> mail through that the primary rejects, and then sending bounces. This ends
> up p
On 1/24/06 1:51 PM, "Michael Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. Not having a secondary MX is a really bad idea.
My question is: "Why?"
Nothing wrong with using PostFix, by the way. When we selected Exim as our
escape from sendmail, PostFix didn't yet exist, so we didn't have to choose.
Michael Johnson wrote:
Hi Gang
I really like using Exim, and recommend it in most cases. However,
I've started working at a place where they're using Postfix. They
don't have a secondary mail server, and I'd like to set up Exim as the
secondary. The reasons I have so far are:
1. Not
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 16:51, Michael Johnson wrote:
> I really like using Exim, and recommend it in most cases. However,
> I've started working at a place where they're using Postfix.
The place I worked at insisted on Sendmail, the reason being historical
popularity. Grr. At least you'
Hi Gang
I really like using Exim, and recommend it in most cases. However,
I've started working at a place where they're using Postfix. They
don't have a secondary mail server, and I'd like to set up Exim as
the secondary. The reasons I have so far are:
1. Not having a secondary MX is
