Ian Eiloart wrote: > > --On 19 February 2008 17:59:03 +0000 W B Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> ELSE - don't publish it, as you are contributing to breaking >> RFC-mandated behaviour for the many who *need* backup MX to function as >> expected. > > If does when the same machine is listening. If you can't get through to one > IP address on my host, you're welcome to try the other. You just won't find > anything there. I don't see how two missing hosts are worse than one. >
You are ignoring the parts of the world beyond your control. There are typically a dozen or more hops between international MX'en. 'traceroute' a few of your correspondents and see. If ANY ONE of those inks is out of service - even briefly - the *possibility* exists that a sending MTA will try to fall back to your published secondary (et al) MX. Uncommon, but it happens - see recent fibre cable outages. Not a spammer. Nothing amiss with your server. Nor theirs. MTA can't read newspapers very well. So they legitimately arrive on your published backup - and you drop them on the floor. Is that what your employer wants? I've got strict server rules - but that method is not among them. Better to not publish the backup. Bill -- ## 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/
