Fwd: RE: Dealing with MailScanner overloads

[Gerry Doris]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, Antony Stone wrote:

> On Sunday 14 September 2003 2:34 pm, Gerry Doris wrote:
>
> > However, if scanning on the seconday MX isn't possible then I like the
> > idea of turning it off until a better solution is found ie processing its
> > mail at an offpeak time or redirecting the mail to another server for
> > scanning.  The mail won't be lost.
>
> Is that true?   If your primary MX actually rejects mail sent by the
> secondary MX (rather than simply being unavailable), the secondary MX will
> still keep it queued and try again?
>

That isn't what I meant.  If the primary server rejects the message then
it's reject...period.  I was thinking that this would be implemented
differently.  The primary server would appear to be unavailable.  Perhaps
this isn't doable though?

--
Gerry

"The lyfe so short, the craft so long to learne"  Chaucer