Understood, perhaps 'as reliable as possible' would be a better expectation.
I think that for now we will probably just do a secondary server to cache mail in the event that the primary goes down, this was in place before we moved the mail server to this office but we had DNS issues with our serice provider IP being spam blocked and we were at their mercy to gewt it cleared. Now we do it through our own office and an ISP that we have an agreement with to resolve such things promptly. I think this is a stop-gap solution until I do alittle more research. The generator is looking good right about now... thanks for all the input so far. On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Dimitri Maziuk <[email protected]>wrote: > On 01/13/2012 01:57 PM, Paul O'Rorke wrote: > > he he - I already thought that might be simpler... > > Part of it is what do you mean by "deliver client e-mails". SMTP is one > thing, POP/IMAP is another, direct read from mbox file is different > still (though it sits behind pop/imap as well). Another side is although > SMTP RFCs start with "reliable and efficiently", e-mail delivery has > always been "best effort" -- so I would not build a business plan on the > assumption that e-mail is or will ever be reliable. > > -- > Dimitri Maziuk > Programmer/sysadmin > BioMagResBank, UW-Madison -- http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu > > > _______________________________________________ > Linux-HA mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha > See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems > -- Paul O'Rorke _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
