john mickler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have one other question about BCP for mailing infrastructure.
>
> In our current setup we have:
>
> INBOUND
> a.mx --
> b.mx mail
> c.mx --
[...]
> So for BCP on mailing infrastructure, is this a good design? Are the
> correct services r
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Wietse Venema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> john mickler:
>> I have one other question about BCP for mailing infrastructure.
>>
>> In our current setup we have:
>>
>> INBOUND
>> a.mx --
>> b.mx mail
>> c.mx --
>>
>> OUTBOUND
>> {local servers} -->
>> rem
john mickler:
> I have one other question about BCP for mailing infrastructure.
>
> In our current setup we have:
>
> INBOUND
> a.mx --
> b.mx mail
> c.mx --
>
> OUTBOUND
> {local servers} -->
> remote-smtp-auth --> smtp --> {INTERNET}
Makes sense to me, but then it's been a whi
I have one other question about BCP for mailing infrastructure.
In our current setup we have:
INBOUND
a.mx --
b.mx mail
c.mx --
OUTBOUND
{local servers} -->
remote-smtp-auth --> smtp --> {INTERNET}
a.mx, b.mx, c.mx do not handle local delivery, they only pass
"acceptable" mail b
