On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:25:44 +0100, Jurjen Oskam wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 13:39:01 -0500 (EST), Russell Nelson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >That's a misconfiguration. I'd rather that the email bounced than it
> >got delivered via SMTP silently. It could be that someone unaware of
> ...
> >delivered via qmtpd but it is failing to run for some reason. If we
> >fall back to smtp, they'll never know that it's failing unless
they're
> >watching their qmail logs carefully.
>
> But isn't that a bit in contradiction with the concept of backup
> MX'es?
If the goal is to deliver E-mail securely and quickly, falling back to
(a presumed functional) SMTP server fits the bill.
If the goal is to use QMTP "just because its there", then Russ' comments
make more sense.
--
Michael T. Babcock (PGP: 0xBE6C1895)
http://www.fibrespeed.net/~mbabcock/
