If both the secondary and the primary are running the same spam protection, how much additional spam is likely to come through the secondary? As opposed to simply being shifted to the secondary, that is.
If they are running the same protection, it can be effective. But in my case the secondary is being run by TWC. Of course my other option is to find secondary service that runs spam protection also. But there can easily be disagreements about what to reject, since it is unlikely that I can directly control the secondary box.
The argument against having a secondary MX is quite strong when the proposed machine is out of your control and/or has a less discriminating antispam policy.
The only good reason to have a secondary out of your spam-protection control (assuming you trust it otherwise to begin with) is the reason I cited: for those 1-in-a-hundred or -thousand cases where you cannot afford for your e-mail to get bounced because of a network issue.
I do have to say, that after going through a series of DSL bankruptcies, we have had exactly 100% uptime with TWC's business class service. As time goes on, it will get easier to convince management to drop secondary MX.
Stefan Jeglinski
############################################################# 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]>
