On 8/9/2011 9:28 PM, Ben Kennedy wrote:
Bowie Bailey wrote at 9:47 AM (-0400) on 6/10/11:
My solution to this problem is to take the secondary server offline. If
the primary server goes down, the sending servers will queue the mail
for you for a reasonable amount of time (generally at least
Ben Kennedy writes:
u...@example.com: u...@mailhost.example.com
That's an interesting and clever approach. Would this properly pass through
ad hoc local-part extensions, e.g. for mail addressed to user-
someth...@example.com - user-someth...@mailhost.example.com?
No, it wouldn't.
Sam Varshavchik wrote at 7:07 AM (-0400) on 8/10/11:
That's an interesting and clever approach. Would this properly pass
through
ad hoc local-part extensions, e.g. for mail addressed to user-
someth...@example.com - user-someth...@mailhost.example.com?
No, it wouldn't.
Well, that rules
Ben Kennedy writes:
Sam Varshavchik wrote at 7:07 AM (-0400) on 8/10/11:
That's an interesting and clever approach. Would this properly pass
through
ad hoc local-part extensions, e.g. for mail addressed to user-
someth...@example.com - user-someth...@mailhost.example.com?
No, it wouldn't.
Hey all,
I'm folloiwng up on this thread I started about two months ago. I haven't had
time to revisit it or implement any of your suggestions until now. So this is
a delayed response, but thank you for the ideas, Bowe and Sam!
Sam Varshavchik wrote at 10:05 PM (-0400) on 6/9/11:
One thing
Hello Sam,
your suggestion is genearaly working but if you have two mails like
linux4miche...@tamay-dogan.net
linux4miche...@tdexample.net
then you run into problems wbch can be solved IF the whole lenght of the
LOCALPART@DOMAIN
does not exceed 32 characters. :-D
If you have already an
On 6/9/2011 8:45 PM, Ben Kennedy wrote:
Hey folks,
Some of you may recall this discussion from last fall. I've got a
problem, one that I guess my servers have exhibited for years, and I
want to fix it.
I have two machines, which I'll call primary and secondary. They
are both MX for a
Hey folks,
Some of you may recall this discussion from last fall. I've got a
problem, one that I guess my servers have exhibited for years, and I
want to fix it.
I have two machines, which I'll call primary and secondary. They
are both MX for a number of domains; primary has a lower priority
Ben Kennedy writes:
Hey folks,
Some of you may recall this discussion from last fall. I've got a
problem, one that I guess my servers have exhibited for years, and I
want to fix it.
I have two machines, which I'll call primary and secondary. They
are both MX for a number of domains; primary
On 23/Sep/10 01:00, Malcolm Weir wrote:
From: Ben Kennedy [mailto:b...@zygoat.ca]
With respect, I still find this argument somewhat specious. Virtually
every enterprise of any size on the internet still runs multiple MX
servers. While I appreciate that having a single point of reception
means a
-Original Message-
From: Alessandro Vesely [mailto:ves...@tana.it]
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 2:40 AM
In my experience, enterprises of size actually operate dedicated boundary
servers as their MX platforms, and final delivery is handled by an
entirely
different set of servers
11 matches
Mail list logo
