At 1:54 PM -0700 5/20/04, Elliot Wilen wrote: >If both the secondary and the primary are running the same spam protection, how much >additional spam is likely to come through the secondary?
In my case, my secondary is another SIMS box with the same RBLs and spamtraps. It's quite effective. > >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. I agree. If the secondary's anti-spam features match the primary's, I don't see the presence of a secondary as a detriment. ############################################################# 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]>
