sobig.f and secondary MX

[Daniel Bird]

Antony Stone wrote:

>On Friday 22 August 2003 12:20 am, Daniel Bird wrote:
>
>
>
>>Julian Field wrote:
>>
>>
>>>How about you make them the same priority and just share the load between
>>>the two?
>>>
>>>
>>In theory, that's what I thought. That's exactly what we have but I'm
>>seeing a skew to one of them. Over the last 24 hours, one of our has
>>seen 2551 messages, whilst the other has only seen 152. Odd.....
>>
>>
>
>I'm not sure if you mean you changed your MX records so they became the same,
>but you're still seeing a skew, or you mean the MXs have always been the
>same, but you're seeing a skew anyway...
>
Sorry, it's late. They've been like that for about 3 years! ;-)

>
>If you changed them, what's the remote server cache time on your DNS records?
>
>24 hours sounds like insufficient time for remote DNS servers to discover the
>change to me.
>
Quite right. :-))

>
>Antony.
>
>--
>
>If builders built buildings the way programmers write programs,
>then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilisation.
>
>
>

--
____________________________________

Daniel Bird
Network & Systems Manager
St. George's Hospital  Medical School
Tooting
London SW17 0RE

P: +44 20 8725 2897
F: +44 20 8725 3583
E: dan at sghms.ac.uk
____________________________________

Hex dump: Where witches put used curses...
"#define QUESTION ((bb) || !(bb)) - Shakespeare."

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/attachments/20030822/e379d6f3/attachment.html