Tyler J. Frederick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 18 August 2000 at 11:31:30 -0400
> Hey all
>
> I was talking to someone today about qmail, and they were saying that
> "it's good, but it's a lousy secondary MX because it won't store and
> forward" I didn't think this was right, and he elaborated by saying "Yea,
> if you use tcpserver with the -x option, an env var doesn't get set so it
> won't store and forward."
>
> I've never heard of anything like this, and he swore there was a link on
> qmail.org about it (which he couldn't find when I asked to see it) but I'm
> always willing to get a second opinion. That's where you guys come
> in. Anyone heard of this?
I'm using qmail on my secondary MX; works fine. Nothing tricky or
complex about setting it up.
I chose to use the "deliver to maildir" approach mentioned. The other
approach would also work, but I wanted to cover the possibility that
my primary might be down for longer than queuelifetime without my
losing mail. Also wanted to be able to easily turn *off* delivery
from the secondary, for when I have the carcass of the primary
partially revived and not smart enough to know it's not safe yet
(since the secondary is physically and network-topology close, things
I did to keep the primary away from the real world might not isolate
it from the secondary).
No reference to "MX" or "secondary" on the front page at www.qmail.org
seems to discuss anything like this. If it's there, it's buried
deeper (and most everything is pointed to from the top page there).
--
Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon
Bookworms: http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b
David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
