Hello George: Thanx for your interest in e-mail. I hope the comments below help you out.
Regards Darryl Green ________________________________ Darryl Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tucows Inc. Phone:(416)-538-5461 Toll Free: (800)-371-6992 x1341 Fax: (416)-531-5584 96 Mowat Avenue Toronto Ontario M6K 3M1 > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of George Kirikos > Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 5:10 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: A few questions about the email service > > > Hello, > > I was reviewing the technical setup instructions at: > > http://help.webmaillogin.com/ > > and it says: > > Instead you will have to add the following records to your DNS zone > file. > @ IN MX 0 mail.DomainName.TLD > mail.DomainName.TLD IN CNAME webmaillogin.com. > > I've read in some places that having a MX record point to a CNAME, as > opposed to an A record is bad. Although, perhaps that's outdated. Will > the above work for all mailers, to not lose any email? Our apologies, the above configuration works but is in violation of rfc2181 section 10.3. We actually caught it a while ago but the change never got updated on the site. It will be changed today. The correct configuration is: @ IN MX 10 webmaillogin.com. mail.DomainName.TLD IN CNAME webmaillogin.com. > > Also, can you comment on the robustness of the e-mail solution? i.e. > hosted in a world-class datacentre with lots of connectivity, so it'll > receive/send emails fast...data backups, RAID 5, etc...terms of service > as to any "quality of service" guarantees, etc. Commitment period (i.e. > in case you stop offering it, good notice period to allow folks to > transition away from it). Can it be considered suitable for > 'mission-critical' email? (i.e. is Tucows using it for their own > email?) Much of this is dealt with in the Contract which obligates us to give you 30 days prior notice and that, even if we did cancel the service, we agree to run the service for existing customers for a minimum of a year. That said, this clauses have more to do with the conservativeness of our lawyers than concerns than ensuring we have a business out. We are committed to making this work and have invested a substantial amount in our architecture. Speaking of Architecture (and Legal agreements) there will be some changes in this regard by the time we go to General Availability in February. We will make the legal agreement more accessible (read "shorter") and include an SLA that will not be less than 99.95% uptime availability (i think we can promise much better but we are being conservative for now). We have extensively tested our existing architecture and are confident that it meets our near-term needs (yes -- we are using this system for our internal @tucows.com e-mail). We will guarantee full dynamic redundancy by early February 2003 and are still building out the architecture at this time. We will be happy to share the full details with you when available. > > It appears to be a good offering, and could help me to justify dumping > one of my existing webhosts who I've stuck with for years at high > expense, mainly because of their reliable email. > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > http://www.kirikos.com/
