Thanks for all your answers.
> I didn't see your explanation of the problem that you expect to solve
> with a secondary MX record, though.
Oh right, now I remember that a number of you people are against the use
of secondary MX. Could you restate your reasons ? Have you had by
experience with them ?
Would you also hold the same position against an _intelligent_ secondary
MX that could do mail distribution exactly like the primary (but this
was not the point of my original question).
Basically, I think I'd rather have a secondary MX because I'd rather
have mail queued at my end than at sender's end, where I don't control
delay before bounce, queue reliability, and so on.
Also, if I remember well, you stated that secondary MX was even
unnecessary in the case of service outage on the primary due to
maintenance, given that mail will wait at the other end. Again, I'd
rather have mail wait at my end. Maybe this is a misguided attempt at
controling too much ?
