also sprach Wietse Venema <wie...@porcupine.org> [2011.08.09.2141 +0200]: > > Has anyone found out how to make this work in combination with > > a physically-separate secondary MX? > > At this time, Postfix supports no suitable database type that can > be shared AND provide the performance level (milliseconds latency) > AND provide the robustness that postscreen requires.
I was wondering more about the prioritisation of 3–4 MX records, two for the primary and possibly only one for the secondary, e.g. 10 primary-0.mx 20 secondary.mx 30 primary-1.mx In this scenario, what will the spammers hit? -- martin | http://madduck.net/ | http://two.sentenc.es/ "the well-bred contradict other people. the wise contradict themselves." -- oscar wilde spamtraps: madduck.bo...@madduck.net
digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)
