On 01.03.2015 22:47:12, John Levine wrote: > >(1) example.com. MX 23 primary.example.com. > > example.com. MX 42 backup.example.com. > > backup.example.com. A/AAAA <address of server a> > > backup.example.com. A/AAAA <address of server b> > > Here I presume you meant to have two A records for > primary.example.com.
Yes, sorry. Thanks for pointing this out.
> A name with several A records is supposed to mean that there's one
> host with interfaces on several networks. If a client tried to
> contact one of the addresses and it failed, it'd be reasonable to go
> to the backup without trying the other A records.
Okay, it seems to be consensus to have separate MX records for each
server. That answers my question. Thanks!
> By the way, why do you have a backup MX? These days, it's hard to
> keep the spam filtering on the backup in sync with the primaries, and
> anyone who's not a spammer will wait and retry for long enough that
> you're going to get all of the real mail. Backup MXes made sense in
> the 1980s when networks were flaky and there were a lot of servers on
> intermittent dialup connections. They don't make much sense now.
It just seems to add a bit of redundancy without much cost. The backup
server would have the virtual user table and would reject based on the
same rules as the primaries (easy to sync with puppet et al), although
actual spam would happen on the primaries only. That’d save me the
effort of running and maintaining the spam filtering and imap server on
three hosts.
However, “anyone who's not a spammer will wait and retry for long
enough” is an interesting point that I will consider, so I might skip
the backup altogether.
In any case, thanks for your advise, all of you!
-- Leon.
pgpYI_oogBAaz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list [email protected] http://chilli.nosignal.org/mailman/listinfo/mailop
