<quote who="David Kempe"> > I have been steadily disabling secondary MXes for some time now. Its just > a great way to attract spam - not an option when you net connection is not > stable/permanent, but aside from that secondary MX just seems to be spam > trap.
Random hints for interested thread-readers: 1) If you don't control the secondary MX, it is barely better than useless. 2) If your primary mail server goes down often enough or long enough that you think you need a secondary MX, you really need to fix your primary, build a cluster or outsource. 3) If your primary mail server is on a dynamic IP address, no matter how "stable" you think it is, you are doomed with a capital F. 4) It is one million times [1] more important to have stable DNS than it is to have a secondary MX. If your DNS server goes down, you're toast. If your primary mail server goes down, clients will keep the mail queued for a reasonable period of time. If your primary mail server goes down for long enough that clients will start dumping mail, see (2). - Jeff [1] The figure sounds outrageous, but I can prove it. [2] [2] LSD required. -- GVADEC 2004: Kristiansand, Norway http://2004.guadec.org/ Grind'n'wink. That is all. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
