From: Mike Hoskins (mike.hoskinse2open.com)
Date: Sat Oct 23 2004 - 03:04:29 CDT

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Craig Sanders wrote:
> for almost all mail domains, backup mx hosts are unneccessary these days.
> the ONLY reason why most people have them is because they are running on
> obsolete gossip which says "having a backup MX is a Good Thing<tm>" when,
> in this era of the internet, it is almost always a Bad Thing.

how do you get around a geographic failure with a single MX host. e.g. one
site drops off the planet... let's say BGP issue... where does your mail
go? upstream? for how long? can you see what's in the queue upstream?
i've been several places where queuing mail on servers out of our direct
control was in no way more than an option of last resort. (meaning if it
happens, you better know why and already be fixing it.) this was partly
based upon business requirements, and partly because "upstream servers" were
UUNet at the time.

don't follow gossip, do what's technically justified by your requirements.
why can't a valid recipient map be maintained across all inbound postfix
instances? are all the big mail providers going to start running a single
MX? this doesn't sound like a real solution to me, only reaction to a
problem. i can see how this could turn into a holy war. how many users do
you have behind a single MX? :)

-m

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]