Greg Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 19 September 1999 at 09:18:55 -0400
> But before I go, in response to Racer X:
>
> >> the more i think about this, the more i think that
> >> fallback MX records aren't really necessary anymore.
>
> There are several reasons I think they are still useful:
>
> 1) Redundancy. All machines die at some time or other. I'd rather
> not have the added pressure of knowing that mail will start bouncing if it
> isn't fixed in X amount of time while I'm trying to fix it.
>
> 2) Maintenance. You can take your mail server down for maintenance
> and not worry about where the mail sits in the meantime - I'd rather it sit
> and wait on my server than on someone elses!
>
> 3) Upgrades. You can test upgrades on a fallback MX before moving
> them on up.
This is amusing to me; you're both essentially saying that you trust
your *own* servers more than you trust other people's servers, so it's
better for the mail to do its waiting on *your* servers.
If all sysadmins were like that (and good enough to make it a
*reasonable* preference), we wouldn't have a lot of these discussions
about misconfigured systems :-) .
--
David Dyer-Bennet ***NOTE ADDRESS CHANGES*** [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ (photos) Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon
http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b (sf) http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ Ouroboros Bookworms
Join the 20th century before it's too late!
