> Peter wrote: > Since that was a greylisting experiment, it does't simulate a > MX-unreachable event, so I doubt that the behaviour observed can be > extrapolated.
Well, I guess that if backup MX exists, it might have some use at some point. > Time for a better hosting company? This reminds me a story: - "I've got problem with my wife those times"... - "Why not change your wife after all?... That's easier than fixing the problem!" \\(^0^)// Ah, I wish it could be like that in life too~. (;_;). > Then make the current 'secondary' MX into the primary MX, install the > spam filtering that *you* need and *you* control. Reject unwanted mail > inline, deliver known-wanted mail to the current 'primary', treating > it as a simple backend mailstore. Unifying the backup MX and primary MX spam filtering is what I want to achieve too. jcn50/mailing. -- ## 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/
