On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 04:04:55PM +0000, Peter Gradwell wrote:
> At 4:32 pm +0100 13/2/99, 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?
>
> I belive richard means that the secondary mx will sit there uselessly trying to
> deliver to the nonexistant primary mx.
And also possibly not attempting at the right time (i.e. when the client is online).
> Which is why the secondary needs to be modified only to deliver when primary is up.
Exactly.
> >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?
>
> not one worth using.
I fully agree.
Oh btw.. please don't Cc me, I'm on the list.
Greetz, Peter.
--
.| Peter van Dijk
.| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
