[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 27 September 1999 at 15:06:28 -0500
> OTTOMH, I would favor a randomized fallback scheme which does not depend
> on queued message state. When a delivery failure occurs, choose a random
> number, then decide whether to now try the next MX based on a probability
> derived from the MX level, or the ratio of MX levels, then maybe or maybe
> not retry the next level before requeueing.
>
> Should MX entries of equal value be tried equally?
I think attempting to make inferences about the relative priority of
MX records from the differences in their priorities is a BIG mistake
(other than the defined ordering). Many MX priority schemes are
historical, and involve fitting things into existing cracks, so the
intervals and values are random, except for ording. And it's a misuse
of the priority value, subject to massive breakage if somebody else
defines a competing misuse, or if a standard meaning is adopted. Just
don't go there!
--
David Dyer-Bennet ***NOTE ADDRESS CHANGES*** [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ (photos) Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon
http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b (sf) http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ Ouroboros Bookworms
Join the 20th century before it's too late!
