Am Donnerstag, den 08.11.2007, 11:11 -0500 schrieb Ken Price: [...] > And if that is indeed the case, I go back to my original question: "Is > a secondary MX worth the effort?" To be a little bit more precise, you ask wheter a secondary MX located offsite (!) is worth the effort. You have not asked about running several MX servers on your primary site, where I consider a must-have and which usually is no problem, since all servers should be able to access the same resources (e.g. user-database) easily.
Now, about running a secondary MX offsite.... if you run such a server and just accept all messages, relay them to your primary which might reject them, then you cause lots of backscatter and will run into problems. Of course, if the server really only does act as secondary MX, you might not really care about it being blacklisted, but don't forget to create some whitelists on your own antispam-setup to ignore your secondary mx being blacklisted... And don't forget to hire some more staff to handle complaints. A secondary MX is acceptable if and only if you can run it like your primary. You have a replicated user-database to reject invalid recipients, the same antispam-setup, the same antivirus-setup, etc. Given your concrete situation, this can be difficult (expecially regarding the user-database) and quite expensive (hardware, antispam-appliances, etc.). To sum up: going the easy way by running a stupid secondary will cause trouble and will cause some kind of punishment. It is not worth the effort. Going the right way can be quite demanding and expensive. Do some math to calculate your investment and then consider the possible advantages and then decide wheter or not it is worth both effort and money. Effort being just another kind of money, actually.... Short summary: no. -- CU, Patrick.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
-- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
