FEATURE(dnsbl...... in sendmail

[Mike Zanker]

On 08 April 2002 17:50 +0100 Julian Field <jkf at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK> wrote:

> In that case, aren't you better off without it? Mail will queue on the
> sender's outgoing servers for a few days if your primary MX is out of
> action. So as long as you can keep your primary MX up most of the
> time, and can fix it fairly quickly, you don't need a secondary at
> all.

It's a home ADSL connection and the secondary is one of the ISP's mail
servers. If my ADSL link goes down for any reason I'd rather the mail
was waiting for me in one place where I can use ETRN to get it
delivered immediately when I come back online.

> If possible, you should obviously have a secondary MX, but given the
> choice between having one I couldn't configure properly, and not
> having one at all, I would have to think quite hard which way to go.
> Personally I have 3 MX's, but I have complete control over all of
> them. If you are wondering why 3, it provides us resilience against
> failures in the UK academic network, our MAN, and our local campus
> network.

Absolutely, and under those circumstances I couldn't agree more. That's
exactly what we do at the UK university where I work!

Mike
--
Mike Zanker
Northampton, UK
PGP Public Key: pgp at zanker.org