On 3/1/15 11:07 PM, Dave Warren wrote:
On 2015-03-01 17:56, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 10:47:12PM -0000, John Levine wrote:
By the way, why do you have a backup MX? [snip]
He's right. There's no reason for this anymore. All MX's should
be precisely equivalent in terms of their accepted email addresses
and their anti-spam rulesets. The primary tools of competent,
professional system administrators are your friends here: use
make, rsync, and friends to ensure that they're kept identical
at all times...and use things like virtusertable entries to handle
the internal plumbing necessary to route mail as needed.
While I agree, it may still be advantageous to have inbound email come
to one server over another, so it's not inherently wrong to consider one
a "backup", as long as the configuration is functionally similar.
Sorry, I disagree with you quite profoundly on this point. I do a lot of
DR planning/design with customers, and thinking of something as a
"backup" inevitably leads to bitrot, and bad experiences when there is
an actual recovery situation.
One of my favorite types of messages to get are of the variety, "We had
a failover and no one noticed!" :)
Doug
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
http://chilli.nosignal.org/mailman/listinfo/mailop
