-----Original Message----- >From: Ben Kennedy [mailto:b...@zygoat.ca] >Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 12:58 PM
>>The most straightforward configuration is not to have secondary MX >>servers at all, and has been for many years. >With respect, I still find this argument somewhat specious. Virtually >every enterprise of any size on the internet still runs multiple MX >servers. While I appreciate that having a single point of reception >means a simpler configuration, it also foregoes some measure of >redundancy and versatility. Are Google and Apple and IBM and the White >House out of their minds? I suppose that perhaps Courier is the wrong >product for any such business, but if so, it seems an unfortunate design >exclusion. In any case, that's getting off track. In my experience, enterprises of size actually operate dedicated boundary servers as their MX platforms, and final delivery is handled by an entirely different set of servers often totally invisible to the outside user. You mentioned Google explicitly; they actually sell this service via the capabilities they acquired with Postini. Their MX service has just a list of acceptable recipient addresses, and forwards scanned messages somewhere else entirely for delivery. Malc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances and start using them to simplify application deployment and accelerate your shift to cloud computing. http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev _______________________________________________ courier-users mailing list courier-users@lists.sourceforge.net Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users
