David Dyer-Bennet writes:
> What is the appropriate MTA behavior in this case? It seems clear
> to me that what everybody would want in this situation is for an
> MTA to fail over to the secondary MX.
If their MX records are incorrectly configured, their email isn't
going to go through. Why should other hosts go through heroic hoops
just to get the mail to them?
> Should we be giving any consideration to the question of whether, on
> the average, secondary MXs are less reliable than primary? I don't
> think we should; I don't think we should warp the implementation to
> accommodate incorrectly configured systems.
Aren't you doing just that? Right now, qmail works fine for machines
which are correctly configured but sometimes inaccessible. Various
people (not you) are talking about warping the implementation to
accommodate incorrectly configured systems. There's a ton of
different ways you can configure your system so that email bounces.
Why should a remote system bother to work around any of them? I mean,
there's the chance that the SMTP server might be configured with the
wrong hostname, so the client should strip off the hostname for the
RCPT TO: lines, right??
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Government schools are so
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool!
