On 05/01/07, Andrew Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Does it make sense to deliver to the 2nd MX if we know the 1st MX does > >> not accept mail for the address? > > >You can certainly argue that it does not, because in a classical > configuration, the 2nd MX is just going to forward the > >message to the first. > > However, one of the reasons people have a secondary MX is so that they can > still take ownership of a message even if it could not be delivered to it's > final destination.
The 'classical configuration' is become increasingly less common, though. For example, the infrastructure we use to support 1000-odd domains has 3 geographically-distributed MXs, each of which is able to perform aliasing and final delivery to distributed mailstore servers or customer MXs. A 4xx from one of these servers due to some local problem should imply nothing about whether another is likely to be want to handle the message. Peter -- Peter Bowyer Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
