I replied to the wrong email :) There was one with something about having a box confiugred where everything was routed to null to fake out spammers - that is the one I had intended on replying to with the "not safe" bit :)
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:03:20 -0800 Aron S. Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's no less safe than a normal setup, which has a primary > and secondary anyway. In this case, only if all servers 1-4 > go down, does the "error" box kick in, except for SPAM, > which is likely to use it first. > > On Tuesday, March 19, 2002, at 05:22 , Dale Therio wrote: > > >I don't think this would be safe. What if your primary goes > >down for > >whatever reason or due to a larger network issue your > >primary is not > >reachable? > > > >Dale > > ############################################################# This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Send administrative queries to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
