Would any common MTAs in use have any problems with delivery to a
destination where a subset of its MXs are v4-only and another (non-
intersecting) subset are v6-only?
I presume that any rfc-compliant MTA would do the right thing.
At least in theory.
But would such an arrangement work in practice
> "JL" == John Levine via mailop writes:
JL> But now, in 2020, is there a point to secondary servers?
Since 05 or so I've used two MX in geo-distanced datacentres at the same
priority. Some senders ony ever use one or the other, but it still works
better than anything else i've tested.
-Ji
> "CW" == Chris Woods via mailop writes:
CW> Like others I've reached the end of my tether with DO. In my case, I've
CW> seen increasing volumes of malicious / junk traffic via their IPv6
CW> prefixes, with reports to abuse doing virtually nothing, so now I just
CW> define ip/ip6tables drop r
