On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 08:58:05PM -0500, John Levine via mailop wrote: > In article <469F9E736EE5DB4A8C04A6F7527268FA01CA03E20B@MACNT35.macro.local> > you write: > >Where we have multiple internet connections, we setup MX records for both > >connections. If one connection is down, > >email flows through the other one. > > That sounds like two equal priority MX records. No problem with that. > > Personally I'd use two A records for one name, but whatever.
Not a good idea if for a domain name the MX service is handled by other hosts than the services targeting A/AAAA records. I don't want to get forced to implement something like a HA proxy to separate MX and say web requests. What's the gain to give up a MX construction which is well-known? Omitting it would generate a lot of work (if MTA software has to be adpated, at least for DNS setup) and maybe a lot of unexpected effects. I do not want get forced to distinguish web services with a prefix "www.". Even the base name of a domain should deliver web pages or other services. The other thing is the MX are like CNAME classless, without the need to fiddle around with A/AAAA records properly and keep them in sync. And I can't use CNAMEs for, because these names get canonified on the sender's end. Johann K. _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
